|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 260 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Taz writes:
quote: Yes, it does.
Genesis 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days. Waves don't last for that long. And if that's not enough, it says so directly:
Genesis 8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark. I should think that "the waters were on the face of the whole earth" is pretty explicit.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22941 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Hi ICANT,
Let me incorporate your correction into the model:
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, then became superheated steam that turned into hydrous minerals and disappeared into the mantle. Trixie, the proposer of this thread, was asking for models like this to be proposed so that they could be "examined for plausibility with regard to current science," rather than for evidence that the model describes what actually happened. I won't get specific, Edge has done that already, but in general the problem with your model is that it attempts to reconcile Biblical accounts with what you know about science, instead of with what is actually known by science. None of us here knows everything, but the larger the gap between what one knows and what is known then the larger the problems will be with any model one proposes, a fact evident in your model. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 280 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi edge,
edge writes: Not necessarily. In fact, most sea-floor rocks are weathered to some degree. And no, there are plenty of oceanic crustal rocks that are weathered and eroded. So you agree they are there but that they just were never exposed to the elements above water.
edge writes: You are way out of your expertise here, IC. Yep. But I am gaining knowledge every day. But you are not contributing much too that knowledge.
edge writes: I know that it doesn't embarrass you to be so wrong about things, but maybe you could show some respect and learn a little bit more about earth sciences. Why should I be embarrassed trying to learn? I do respect science as I believe the facts science can prove will be in complete accord with the Bible. The author of the Bible is the same author of nature.
edge writes: It is not wrong.In general. However, there are important exceptions and, frankly, I'm pretty sure you don't understand the dynamics of why these boundaries are the way the are. So why not explain the exceptions, rather than state they exist?
edge writes: Possibly something is wrong, but we probably know why there are exceptions. So why not explain what is wrong and the exceptions?
edge writes: Except that the water does not spread out into the mantle. Where did I say the water spread out into the mantle? Anywhere that the water was when the asteroids hit is where it would be until pressure was put on top to cause it to migrate to pockets or in sand. In fact I believe it would have been very hard for the water to reach the mantle must less enter it.
edge writes: Most of it returns to the surface quickly. Could you explain how that is possible? What would cause the water to return to the surface? When it rains in my back yard for a long time I will have about half of my yard with 6 inches of water in it. When it stops raining within 30 minutes the yard will be dry. In 3 hours of sunshine I can mow the yard and dust will fly everywhere. If your assertion was true I would be mowing water. So explain to me why I am not mowing water and dust is flying instead?
edge writes: Do you have a point here? Only that there is historical evidence that the land mass was in one place in the recent past.
edge writes: At the present plate tectonics theory teaches the water in the bottom of the lithosphere and in the top of the asthenosphere cools the movement of the plates.
This is news to me. Please document. I probably made a poor choice of words as the water lubricates the plates and make it possible for the plates to move according to theory. No water equals no movement. Since I think of lubrication as a cooling process as in your automobile engine I think of lubrication between the lithosphere and asthenosphere as a cooling process. Without which they would freeze up and not move as your car engine will without any oil. I could be wrong.
quote: Source It seems this fellow thinks water is required for the plates to move. He has no evidence for what he believes as no one has penetrated the lithosphere with a drill bit yet must less the asthenosphere.
edge writes:
The same evidence that is available for the PT. The land mass was in one place now it is where it is today.
Do you have any evidence for 'instantaneous parting'? edge writes: I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What water? The water that is said to be in the mantle today.
edge writes: What hydrous minerals? The ones said to be in the mantle today.
edge writes: Where does this happen? It would happen at the point the continent was scooting over the material below it as much heat would be created and much water would be heated past superheat steam. Since there is no way to test what happened it is competely supposition.
edge writes: Why would water 'disappear into the mantle' where there are higher pressures and higher temperatures? I understand this model, but it doesn't do what you think it does. Then explain how the water that is said to be in the mantle got there. You say subduction. Present your evidence that subduction has ever taken place.
edge writes: Nothing surprising here. They drilled stable, cold and old continental crust. They were nowhere near the asthenosphere. According to many they were not within 100 miles of the asthenosphere. If it was so cold why couldn't they drill to the 15,000 m they had planned? Why were they so suprised at the anount of water being there that they found? It was not expected to be there. Luis Rivas, completion engineer, deepwater exploration and production for Chevron North America deals with driling holes in the Gulf of Mexico and he talks about the acquifer that is there as well as the water being under the oil in wells and creating problems for his well drilling. You can find what Luis said Here. In replying to my message to Percy you did not mention the contintental crust that I presented that exists in the Gulf and Caribbean. This file is a ppp.
Source Please explain where all the contintental crust that is underwater came from. The bore holes say it is there. God Bless, Edited by ICANT, : change pdf. to ppp in description of file"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
ICANT writes: Only that there is historical evidence that the land mass was in one place in the recent past. Sorry but please present such evidence.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 280 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi Percy,
Percy writes: I won't get specific, Edge has done that already, but in general the problem with your model is that it attempts to reconcile Biblical accounts with what you know about science, instead of with what is actually known by science. Could you list the parts that are actually known by science? We haven't drilled into the lithosphere yet so what do we really know about it? We haven't drilled into the asthenosphere yet so what do we really know about it? There are several hypothesis and conclusions drawn from waves bounced around in the Earth. But facts have a way of changing hypothesis and conclusions. Science does say there is contintental crust under 4,000 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico. It has been drilled in. Yet you guys tells me it does not exist. So why not refute the link I gave concerning the Caribbean Plateau? I got lots more after you guys refute that one. I do have an idea how the contintental crust got there as well as the rest around the world. Is has to do with the water provided for the flood. 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."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 280 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi jar,
I had refered upthread to a presentation by Granny Magda in the flat earth thread in Message 163 which is no long linked. 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."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Which is not evidence that the land mass was in one place in the recent past.
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you rolled a die, and got a 1, you would say that the white part on the face is all in one place. But if you rolled a 2, would you no longer say that? What about the die as a whole, is the white part of a die in more than one place because it has multiple black dots on it?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22941 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
ICANT writes: We haven't drilled into the lithosphere yet so what do we really know about it? We haven't drilled into the asthenosphere yet so what do we really know about it? The relevant issue is that your model only incorporates the scientific knowledge of which you are aware or which you're willing to accept, which is only a tiny subset of which is actually known. Before we could convince you that your model doesn't work scientifically we'd have to persuade you to accept what is already known scientifically. This hasn't proven possible over the years. But I don't see any reason why the goal of this thread should be persuading you. Once you've clearly stated your model (did I get it right last time?) we can figure out what's wrong with it ourselves. Convincing you that it's wrong seems a fool's errand, and given its obvious problems the danger of you making any headway with it seems negligible. I think the kind of attention you'd get giving your ideas significant public exposure would be a wonderful boon for the science side in the creation/evolution controversy. Maybe the Texas State Board of Education can call you to testify the next time they review science textbooks, there's always cameras at those events. Who knows, maybe you're the next Bill Buckingham! --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 987 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Maybe the Texas State Board of Education can call you to testify the next time they review science textbooks, there's always cameras at those events. Dammit, Percy!!! NOOOO!!!!!!!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
So you agree they are there but that they just were never exposed to the elements above water.
The only thing I will agree to is that you really don't know what continental crust is.
So why not explain the exceptions, rather than state they exist?
It would be off topic and I prefer not to teach on message boards.
Could you explain how that is possible? What would cause the water to return to the surface?
The addition of water causes partial melting of the mantle and lower crust, this results in a magamatic diapir which rises up through the crust and commonly on to the surface. These are known as island arcs.
When it rains in my back yard for a long time I will have about half of my yard with 6 inches of water in it. When it stops raining within 30 minutes the yard will be dry. In 3 hours of sunshine I can mow the yard and dust will fly everywhere. If your assertion was true I would be mowing water.
When you have a volcano in your back yard let me know.
I probably made a poor choice of words as the water lubricates the plates and make it possible for the plates to move according to theory. No water equals no movement.
The analogy has merit, but it's kind of a contrived comparison.
Since I think of lubrication as a cooling process as in your automobile engine I think of lubrication between the lithosphere and asthenosphere as a cooling process. Without which they would freeze up and not move as your car engine will without any oil. I could be wrong. Then explain how the water that is said to be in the mantle got there.
That is one way. But subduction also creates a mechanism for water to then reach the surface again.
You say subduction. Present your evidence that subduction has ever taken place.
What age do you want? Subduction complexes in California are a good argument for subduction in the Cretaceous. Island arc rocks with back-arc basins in the Jura-Triassic in Oregona and Idaho are examples of older subduction. How many do you need?
According to many they were not within 100 miles of the asthenosphere.
"Cold" is a relative term when discussing geodynamics. Basically, most continental rocks are 'cold', which is one reason that their crust is so thick. In general. If it was so cold why couldn't they drill to the 15,000 m they had planned? Besides, there are a lot of reasons a borehole needs to be shut down.
Why were they so suprised at the anount of water being there that they found? It was not expected to be there.
Well, if you don't expect any and you find a little, that could be a surprise. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me.
Luis Rivas, completion engineer, deepwater exploration and production for Chevron North America deals with driling holes in the Gulf of Mexico and he talks about the acquifer that is there as well as the water being under the oil in wells and creating problems for his well drilling. You can find what Luis said Here.
Of course. That is because the thick sedimentary wedge that is the Mississippi clastic delta is dewatering and subsiding. I would expect problems with drilling in that environment.
In replying to my message to Percy you did not mention the contintental crust that I presented that exists in the Gulf and Caribbean.
A couple of things come immediately to mind. First there are lots of rifted microcontinents, if you will, in the Caribbean. In another instance Japan has continental crust that has rifted away from the main continent of Asia. Madagascar has rifted away from Africa, IIRC. East Africa is in the process of rifting away from Africal also. This is not difficult stuff. This file is a pdf.Source Please explain where all the contintental crust that is underwater came from. The bore holes say it is there. Further, some of the statements in you link refer more to evidence of continental crust rather than the crust itself. Just look for words like conglomerates, arkoses, red beds, flysch. Those are not continental crust themselves but indicate the presence of continental masses nearby. And, well, looking at the region, I don't see this as a problem... Further yet, there is a process that we call 'cratonization' in which oceanic or island arc materials become more continetal, at least chemically, but repeated episodes of partial melting and magmatism. So, there is no problem finding small fragments of continental crust and supracrustal deposits from continents in a oceanic setting. The problem is that there is not enough of it to make a difference as a source of water for a biblical flood, no matter how you spin it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Could you list the parts that are actually known by science?
Too many to enumerate. And I'm certain that it would be a waste of time, anyway.
We haven't drilled into the lithosphere yet so what do we really know about it?
That is debateable. I would say that the Canadian Shield is part of the lithosphere.
We haven't drilled into the asthenosphere yet so what do we really know about it?
Well, when you come up with a better interpretation, let us know.
There are several hypothesis and conclusions drawn from waves bounced around in the Earth. But facts have a way of changing hypothesis and conclusions. Science does say there is contintental crust under 4,000 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico. It has been drilled in.
I don't remember saying that. There is plenty of crust under the continetal shelves. So what?
Yet you guys tells me it does not exist. So why not refute the link I gave concerning the Caribbean Plateau?
Nothing to refute. They do not show large amounts of continental crust in the Caribbean. See my previous post.
I got lots more after you guys refute that one.
That's part of the problem. Your fragmentary understanding of geology makes you quite certain of yourself. Do you really believe that no one has thought about these things before? Do you think that geologists have spent the last 200 years just making stuff up the way YECs do?
I do have an idea how the contintental crust got there as well as the rest around the world. Is has to do with the water provided for the flood.
What flood? Once you start off with a fairy tale, it's easy to embellish it with more made up stories. Actually dealing with the evidence and gathering more data is hard work. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
We haven't drilled into the lithosphere yet ... Oh for fuck's sake.
Science does say there is contintental crust under 4,000 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico. It has been drilled in. Yet you guys tells me it does not exist. Who told you that there was no continental crust in the Gulf of Mexico? HINT: No-one whosever. You made that up. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Present your evidence that subduction has ever taken place. Oh there's lots of it. My favorite is seismic tomography, like CAT scans except using earthquakes as the probing waves. Here's a side view of the southwestern Pacific, with eartquakes as white dots:
(Depth Extent of the Lau Back-Arc Spreading Center and Its Relation to Subduction Processes) Here's the Aegean between Greece and Turkey:
(Motion history of tectonic plates unravelled ) Here's some images of the western US. See the San Andreas Fault and the Yellowstone hot spot?:
(Upper Mantle Heterogeneity beneath North America from Travel Time Tomography with Global and USArray Transportable Array Data
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22941 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
ICANT writes: Please explain where all the contintental crust that is underwater came from. The bore holes say it is there. 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. But this thread isn't about the scientific model, and you don't care about scientific explanations anyway. This thread asks creationists to describe their model, so if it really does have anything to do with where the water came from before the flood and where it went after, please describe your model for how the crust got down there. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024