Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?

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. 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

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. The see what sticks debating technique. Typical.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If I do this?1) You haven't said that the evidence you propose actually exists, so this line of reasoning does not work.2) How are decreased deposition rates in the past evidence of accelerated nuclear decay rates in the past? Why would not they instead be merely evidence of decreased deposition rates?3) If your proposal is that geological processes proceed at constant rates, then surely we must accept that geological features took millions or even billions of years to form. Is that really your argument?

I don't get it. Nothing I read in the OP suggests that this thread is different from any other. And, why is it unreasonable to discuss or ask for evidence as a method of investigating reasonableness of an explanation, particularly if a process is proposed which has never been observed to actually occur?If asking for evidence is inappropriate, why is this thread here instead of someplace where Buzsaw can participate?

So if a proposed model includes a meteor bombardment that produces effect X, why wouldn't evaluating whether a meteor could produce effect X require evidence, even if we accept without evidence that the meteor bombardment did occur?In this case, the idea that a meteor strike would cause effects that wouldn't be survived by merely floating in a boat has been flatly denied, and apparently pursuing that denial cannot include any request for evidence or even for a logical defense. In my view that's nonsense.

That's fine. I'm going to decline to participate further in the discussion, which I expect should not be of any major consequence. In my opinion it would be quite easy to produce a scenario for which there is no scientific evidence against the scenario, and also no credible reason to believe that such a scenario had ever occurred. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Is there any real difference between magic and made up science? When someone postulates that all of the radioactive elements were contained in the core of the earth and thus no decaying elements were present in the human body before the fall, is that bad science or magic?

I don't find the question of how fundies deal with life all that puzzling. For most fundies, having goofy ideas about science has few negative consequences and no immediate ones. You don't have to be right about anything scientific to have your GPS, television, or smoke detector function just fine. So what difference does it make if your impression regarding how those things work is different from that of a physicist. It's not like anybody is going to ask you to fix any of that stuff if it breaks.Okay, so you aren't going to make good decisions about global climate change. Those consequences are a ways off, and in the short run, maybe global warming is beneficial.In fact it is the physicist who has knowledge that makes it difficult to accept fundie beliefs who is most likely to find him/herself in awkward social situations.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Maybe, I'm paranoid, but that blue bubble sure looks like a lot of water to me? Perhaps it's from hearing water covers 3/4 of the earth's surface, that's giving me the creepies, but I don't find the picture the least bit comforting. It is also the case that the variation in elevation around the globe is very tiny. That suggests that small changes in the volume of water can result in relatively large changes in the amount of land that is submerged.

Creation scientists don't seem to what want these kinds of explanations. It is okay if the Red Sea to parts and then swallows up Pharoah's army, but the Flood has to be something else entirely.