Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9036 total)
87 online now:
anglagard, dwise1, harpo, kjsimons, Pollux (5 members, 82 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,633 Year: 3,279/14,102 Month: 220/724 Week: 69/93 Day: 8/18 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5551
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 181 of 432 (645859)
12-30-2011 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by foreveryoung
12-30-2011 3:38 PM


Re: It all goes into heat
If you consider the amount of heat necessary to disintegrate miles of crust into sand...

Where is the sand today? Other than Lamesa, Texas, I mean. Is it disguised as rock or something?


"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by foreveryoung, posted 12-30-2011 3:38 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5551
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 182 of 432 (645861)
12-30-2011 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by jar
12-30-2011 5:26 PM


Re: It all goes into heat
Almost certainly, Jar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by jar, posted 12-30-2011 5:26 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5551
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 183 of 432 (645863)
12-30-2011 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by foreveryoung
12-30-2011 3:50 PM


Yes, 4.9 trillion joules is enough heat to raise 700,000 kg of crust by 100 degrees.

I made an error - asteroids strike at at least Earth's escape velocity of 11,000 m/sec, not 7,000 as I wrote. Make that 12.1 trillion joules. 20 to 30 km/sec is much more common, at least in these post-Noachic times.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by foreveryoung, posted 12-30-2011 3:50 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 184 of 432 (645874)
12-30-2011 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by foreveryoung
12-30-2011 4:04 PM


How It Actually Works
That's not how it works buddy.

Yes it is.

Again, that is not how it works buddy.

Again, yes it is.

I show you ways that it is not impossible. I just did.

No ... you ... didn't.

You need an actual scenario.

Otherwise the conversation we're having looks rather like this one.

You: Contrary to what you think, it's perfectly possible to build a time machine.
Me: Oh yeah? How would it work?
You: Using electricity!
Me: Could I see an actual circuit diagram, or maybe even a working prototype? Or can I at least hear why you think it would let you travel through time?
You: That is not how it works buddy. You guys are the one who make the claim of impossibility. I show you ways that it is not impossible. I just did. It is now up to YOU to show why my scenario is impossible.

No, it's up to you. Propose an actual scenario, not a mere vague fog of conjecture, and we'll see if it works. But the idea you have now definitely does not work, because it is a vague fog of conjecture.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by foreveryoung, posted 12-30-2011 4:04 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20105
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


(7)
Message 185 of 432 (645897)
12-31-2011 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by foreveryoung
12-30-2011 3:50 PM


Hi Foreveryoung,

Your visualization of what happens in very high speed collisions, say around 10km/sec, is incorrect. All the energy in a meteor striking the Earth's surface is behind the point of contact. The material at the contact point nearly instantaneously vaporizes causing a massive explosion, and the rest of the material vaporizes as it enters the region of contact. Much or even all of the meteor can vaporize.

The energy of the explosion overwhelms the mere velocity components of the meteor. This is why nearly all craters are round no matter how oblique the original angle of attack. The approximately 10 trillion joules would produce an explosion equivalent in energy to approximately 2500 tons of TNT.

I won't speculate about what material might remain behind after so violent an explosion, but one common signature of a meteor impact is tektites, which are small glass rocks formed from molten rock created in the explosion and blasted into the air, where it cools. Unfortunately for your conjecture about "hydrated silica tetrahedrals", they're notable for their unusually low water content, and as the Wikipedia article on Tektites says, the evidence suggests that "tektites were formed under phenomenal temperature and pressure not normally found on the surface of the Earth." Another common signature is the presence of elements more common in meteors than in the Earth's crust, such as iridium.

Meteors around 750,000 kg (maybe about 300 meters in diameter at most) strike the Earth relatively rarely, maybe once every 10 or 20 thousand years (see the Wikipedia article on Impact Events). Depending upon structure and composition meteors break up upon entering the atmosphere, and how much actually reaches the ground still traveling at significant speeds isn't predictable. Smaller pieces are subjected to much more drag relative to the original meteor. Naturally the larger the meteor the more likely some portion of it will strike the ground, and for very large meteors, say 1 km or larger, the likelihood of a significant portion striking the ground at something close to its original speed is high. Metallic meteors can be much smaller and still strike the ground without breaking up. For example, the original size of the meteor responsible for the Barringer crater in Arizona is thought to be about 50 meters (see the Wikipedia article on the Barringer crater).

Your described scenario isn't consistent with anything we know about impact events or meteors, and the physics and chemistry seem doubtful, too.

What we're seeing demonstrated in this thread is the willingness of creationists to make up that which they do not know, and to not care whether what they're making up is contradicted by current knowledge.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by foreveryoung, posted 12-30-2011 3:50 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by NoNukes, posted 12-31-2011 2:02 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 432 (645902)
12-31-2011 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Percy
12-31-2011 9:34 AM


What we're seeing demonstrated in this thread is the willingness of creationists to make up that which they do not know, and to not care whether what they're making up is contradicted by current knowledge.

It isn't just science that they are willing to make up. Often amateur creation scientis don't let the Bible get in the way of their creation science either. FY's reading of the Bible is rather "colorful" as well.

foreveryoung writes:

You are assuming that all God wanted to do was wipe out all life on earth. He also wanted to recreate it from scratch.

Why even bother with a flood if you are going to destroy the earth's surface with sky darkening, firestorm creating, eco system destroying, continent dividing, meteor impacts? Doesn't this meteor scenario make the rainbow sign promise not to destroy the world with a flood again ring pretty hollow? In fact it turns what appears to be a new covenant into a promise that next time God is displeased, no one is going to survive.

And what about the explicit words in Genesis 9:11 that a flood is what God used to destroy the world.

As best as I can tell, the professional creation "scientists" do a bit better with the Bible at least.

Edited by NoNukes, : correct verb form


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 12-31-2011 9:34 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 187 of 432 (645905)
12-31-2011 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by DrJones*
12-30-2011 3:54 PM


No deal. I am not the one who is claiming a global flood/cataclysm described in the bible that destroyed all life is impossible. I am not going to come up with all the mathematics for you. I came up with a possible scenario. Others tried to shoot it down. I showed where they failed to shoot it down by showing that they had not considered other possibilites. It is not up to me to show the mathmatics of the other possibilities. It is up to those who arrogantly claim there was no biblical flood/catastrophe to show the math. Don't want to do that? Try shutting your piehole then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by DrJones*, posted 12-30-2011 3:54 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Perdition, posted 12-31-2011 2:36 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 190 by Theodoric, posted 12-31-2011 2:42 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 191 by DrJones*, posted 12-31-2011 2:46 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 188 of 432 (645906)
12-31-2011 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by foreveryoung
12-31-2011 2:18 PM


Impossible Errand
It is up to those who arrogantly claim there was no biblical flood/catastrophe to show the math.

What you're asking for is impossible. How are we supposed to show our math refuting a claim when the person making a claim makes it so vague as to allow anything at all?

In essence, what you're setting us up for is a snipe hunt because every time we make a counterclaim, you'll throw something new in there that we'll then have to redo all the work. The only way this conversation has any chance at reaching a conclusion is if you, or someone else, provides their specific model. We can then discuss the possibilities and probabilities.

Until then, you're saying, "Prove what I'm thinking is wrong." When we ask you, quite reasonably, "What are you thinking?" You reply, "That's not for me to say. You're the one arrogantly claiming it's wrong."

Don't you see how we would be embarking on a fool's errand to even attempt to follow your directions?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by foreveryoung, posted 12-31-2011 2:18 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 189 of 432 (645907)
12-31-2011 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by JonF
12-30-2011 4:12 PM


Re: Show us the numbers!!
quote:
Let's see your calculations.

No, hypocrite; let's see your calculations. You are the skeptic; not me.

quote:
It would also help if you could present a list of all the claims you have made or are going to make for which you have no evidence and require a miracle to produce.

That request doesn't make a lick of sense. I presented some ideas about how noah's flood happened. Do you know what an idea is? Evidently not. You think the ideas are nonsense? It is up to you to tell me why. Give me your reasoning. Here is how it works: Make your case. How? State what are the facts in your opinion. Use your reasoning skills(if you have any) to show why those facts make it impossible for my claims to be true. Can't do that? Sorry, it's not my problem.

quote:

Can you count the number of miracles he's assuming?

It's convenient that your God is so accommodating, popping up another miracle whenever you want.


I'm not sure I agree with his reasoning. Here is my version, and it only includes one miracle- the creation. How God initially created his world makes all the difference in these so called "problems" of 40K and 14C. As I have stated before, all radioactive elements of the earth were initally created and placed near the center of the earth. In order for there to be 14C, there has to be cosmic radiation that converts 14N into 14C. The bible says God created a great expanse of water above the firmament on day 2. This would have greatly limited the ability of cosmic rays to penetrate the atmosphere and make 14C. There are no post creation miracles at all in this scenario. I cannot speak for Dr Humphreys scenario. How God initially set the parameters of his creation make all the difference in the world to all of these supposed "problems" anti creationists like to propose.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by JonF, posted 12-30-2011 4:12 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by NoNukes, posted 12-31-2011 3:15 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-31-2011 7:15 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 190 of 432 (645908)
12-31-2011 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by foreveryoung
12-31-2011 2:18 PM


No deal. I am not the one who is claiming a global flood/cataclysm described in the bible that destroyed all life is impossible. I am not going to come up with all the mathematics for you. I came up with a possible scenario. Others tried to shoot it down. I showed where they failed to shoot it down by showing that they had not considered other possibilites. It is not up to me to show the mathmatics of the other possibilities. It is up to those who arrogantly claim there was no biblical flood/catastrophe to show the math. Don't want to do that? Try shutting your piehole then.

Bullshit. YOu make the lameass claim put up or shut up

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by foreveryoung, posted 12-31-2011 2:18 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2177
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 191 of 432 (645909)
12-31-2011 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by foreveryoung
12-31-2011 2:18 PM


No deal. I am not the one who is claiming a global flood/cataclysm described in the bible that destroyed all life is impossible.

No, you're the one who is claiming it is possible, ergo it is up to you to support that position.

It is not up to me to show the mathmatics of the other possibilities

Great, then I can safely say that your "possibilities" are in fact impossiblae and downright farcical.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by foreveryoung, posted 12-31-2011 2:18 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 192 of 432 (645910)
12-31-2011 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by JonF
12-30-2011 4:16 PM


Re: It all goes into heat
quote:
Another un-evidenced assertion. Let's see the numbers.

I don't see you making any evidenced assertions , so your point is ridiculous. We are discussing ideas. This is something you seem to fail to grasp. You want to see numbers? Produce your own if you think you can disprove any claim that I make.

quote:
Lab coats and utensils aren't necessary to do the math. List your assumptions and calculate the impact.

My assumption is that an asteroid strike would break lattice bonds of the crust before any energy would be converted into heat. To me, it is a matter of materials science. What happens when a sledge hammer pounds a small boulder? It smashes into tiny pieces. The boulder does not melt. If the crust has no lower density material underneath it , and it is 25 miles thick down to the moho, and there is even denser mantle material beneath that, I can see why it would melt. The lattice bonds are too hard to break because the pressure is great upon them from all sides. With no lattice bonds to break, all kinetic energy is converted into heat energy which conducts very fast through rock and melts it. The dimensions of the crust preflood are not like that and would be more likely to shatter than to melt. I didn't give you the math but I gave you examples. You cannot refute that a slege hammer smashes rock into bits, and so you see that not all impacts result in melting.

quote:
OK, let's see a list of the conditions that were different in Noah's day and the evidence that indicates that those conditions were different. Your un-evidenced assertions are still just that no matter what you want to claim about the sky today.

I don't know all of the conditions that were different in Noah's day, but with the help of skeptics like yourself, I will know them all someday. You think you are destroying the bible with all these supposed deathknell problems you guys keep proposing. You are only digging your own grave(hypothetically speaking). The bible make very few specific claims about the creation and the flood. It leaves a great deal of details to fill in on your own. What you don't see is that you guys are building our model for us. Every problem you bring up is an opportunity for us to fine tune our model. You guys think you have buried the global flood text to alice in wonderland material and laugh at those of us who take it seriously. You think you have it buried because you have attacked a very simplistic view that most YEC hold to and still seem to despite the evidence. Those guys deserve your scorn but I applaud their sincerity. I have been fine tuning my model for over three years during my time as an over the road truck driver during my downtimes mainly at night. I would discuss these matters on any forum my cell phone would let met get at. I finally quit truck driving july 4th and started college again to become a geologist. I have completed 14 hours so far with a 3.91 GPA. I do not let anyone know my beliefs for fear of sabotaging my career.

You want evidence that the conditions preflood and today are different? LOL. Just look outside. There is no huge subterranean body of water. There is plenty of cosmic ray bombardment. There are plenty of radioactive materials near the surface and in our bodies. Those were not the case preflood.

I guess you want to know how we got from those conditions to todays conditions? Here is how: Accelerated nuclear decay that itself has decayed to steady conditions sometime in the near past. A massive 150 day asteroid/meteorite bombardment. A 40 day torrential downpour of water from outerspace( not atmosphere driven or normal climate conditions of today driven). Accelerated plate tectonics over a 200,000 year period. The collapse of the water above the firmament would allow today's cosmic ray bombardment. All of those initially conditions could easily transform into the conditions of today using all known tectonic, and climatic and oceanic forces that we know today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by JonF, posted 12-30-2011 4:16 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 432 (645911)
12-31-2011 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by foreveryoung
12-31-2011 2:38 PM


Re: Show us the numbers!!
all radioactive elements of the earth were initally created and placed near the center of the earth. In order for there to be 14C

It doesn't matter where the radioactive isotopes were placed, the evidence is that there has been billions of years worth of decay of the isotopes. Other than the carbon 14C cycle, the noteworthy production/decay cycles are not affected by cosmic radiation, humidity, ultraviolet light, heat, or pressure to any appreciable degree.

About half of the U 238 that ever existed on earth has since decayed into lead; you need to invoke yet another miracle to explain that. The water canopy explanation doesn't address it at all.
----------
ABE:

There is also the issue that you want to show that the decay rate for U238, K40, etc. has increased rather than decreased. Burying them in the center of the earth, and shielding them from cosmic radiation would not have that effect.

End ABE
------------

What I don't understand is why you bother with this "no new miracle" exercise. Why not just make the water, meteor, etc. magical rather than natural? It cannot be because you don't want to add things to the Bible, because most of the stuff you propose isn't Biblical anyway.

No, hypocrite; let's see your calculations. You are the skeptic; not me.

The see what sticks debating technique. Typical.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by foreveryoung, posted 12-31-2011 2:38 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 194 of 432 (645912)
12-31-2011 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by JonF
12-30-2011 4:22 PM


Re: It all goes into heat
quote:
You're making the positive claim of possibility, we're requesting sufficient information to evaluate that claim. The ball's in your court. Under today's conditions the scenario you propose would wipe out all macroscopic life at least twice over. List the conditions for your scenario including the evidence that those conditions were as you are assuming. You also need to address the observations we have such as the constancy of radioactive decay rates, for example The fundamental constants and their variation: observational status and theoretical motivations. [

Why don't I have the right to make a positive claim of possibility when you guys make the negative claim of impossiblity? You don't have the right to say the flood is myth and stick out your tongue and say idiot, and then expect me to provide you with exact mathmatical proof that you are wrong. You do have the right to expect me to give reasons why I think your claim of impossiblity is wrong, and that is what I have done. Any demand greater than that is unreasonable given that it is you make claims of absolute truth.( the flood is a myth and impossible).

Yes, my conditions today would wipe out all life twice over. That's what it was intended to do. It would not wipe out all life on the ark however. What is it about my conditions that would lead you to believe it would?

Yes, we observe a constancy of radioactive decay rates today? Does anybody know why those rates are constant? I don't think so. Until you can give me a theory that explains why some nucleus' decay at a certain rate, there is no basis on which to state it is impossible for the rate to ever be greater or lesser. I have a geological theory that would show rates were much greater in the past than now, but don't know where to find that information. Here it is:

Find a rock formation that you are absolutely certain is of shallow marine deposition. Find one such marine formation that has definite time marker stamps on it. One could be an ingneous intrustion. Others could be specific time index fossils. The fossils must be exclusive to a certain time period. The only other possibility for fossil marking is to have one type of fossil suddenly disappear, and then another suddenly appear that are known to always follow each other in the fossil record around a specific time period. Limestone deposits at a different rate than near shore sandstone and both deposit differently than lagoon silts. Calculate the depths of the sandstones then depths of the lagoon silts then the depths of the limestones.
Assign appropriate weights to each classification of deposits found within that formation. Divide that total depth of deposit by the length of time involved in that shallow marine environment of the past. That is a rate of depostion for your specific time period. Do the same procedure for a period of time that is significantly older or younger than the one above, and make sure it is a shallow marine deposit as well. If you do this for several different time periods and find that deposition rates were far slower in the distant past and gradually grew faster as the time period progressed toward today, then you have evidence for accelerated nuclear today in the past, in my opinion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by JonF, posted 12-30-2011 4:22 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Perdition, posted 12-31-2011 3:44 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 198 by NoNukes, posted 12-31-2011 4:06 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 199 by jar, posted 12-31-2011 4:24 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 195 of 432 (645913)
12-31-2011 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by foreveryoung
12-31-2011 3:37 PM


Read the OP and Forum Guildelines
Why don't I have the right to make a positive claim of possibility when you guys make the negative claim of impossiblity?

That's how debate works. Person A makes a claim, they then have to support that claim. If person B says the claim is wrong, it is up to person A, who is making the positive claim, to provide a reason to believe them. If they don't, then person B has nothing to refute, and wins by default.

But even ignoring that. You need to read the OP. The purpose of this thread is for those who believe the flood happened to provide their models and see if they stand up to scrutiny. If you aren't willing to provide a model that can be tested, then you don't belong in this thread.

I understand you're new to this forum. We try to keep threads focused on the OP. If you're not willing to abide by that and the other forum guidelines, you'll soon either find yourself ignored or banned.

This thread is for flood believers to offer evidence or a model. Those of us who don't believe the flood happened are then tasked with trying to show how that model doesn't work. We can't refute a claim that has nothing in it.

Edited by Perdition, : Changed post title.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by foreveryoung, posted 12-31-2011 3:37 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021