Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 1824 of 1896 (718011)
02-03-2014 5:33 PM


What should be expected from someone who starts off the thread with evidence against the global flood and sees in it an argument for a global flood? Message 6
the fact of the different sediments and that they are so neatly separated and demarcated by sharp dividing lines between them.
See the first item on the list.
Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1827 by Faith, posted 02-03-2014 6:20 PM shalamabobbi has replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(2)
Message 1825 of 1896 (718012)
02-03-2014 5:38 PM


Note of assurance for concerned Christians everywhere
For those Christians who are concerned that the intellectual flood of insights provided in this thread might be lost due to error and/or malfeasance on the part of the moderators at EvC rest assured that the 39 pages of posts by Faith in this thread will soon be compiled into a book and added to the bible. It will be organized under a section that will bear the name "The Newest Testament" and besides her enlightened teachings that canyons can be carved underground will include other topics of interest such as Faith's theory of the degeneration of DNA over time since creation week. (God was apparently incapable of sufficiently robust biological engineering to cover for the possibility of the fall of mankind).
For those who are interested, a poll will soon be provided, so you can express your enthusiasm to have Faith added to the godhead creating a quadrinity from the older outdated trinity which fails to answer so many scientific puzzles and enigmas of our modern era. Remember the guru's example and follow her wise lead. When presented with an uncomfortable fact or piece of evidence simply stretch forth your arms making a cross with the index fingers and with voluminous discharge from the lungs pronounce it to be OFF TOPIC, in the holy name of Jesus, amen.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1828 by Faith, posted 02-03-2014 6:38 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(1)
Message 1838 of 1896 (718048)
02-04-2014 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1832 by Faith
02-03-2014 7:12 PM


Re: More evidence for Faith to ignore.
Faith focuses on different types of mountains just enough to relax the tension in her mind about different rates of erosion as though any significant erosion could take place in 4,000 years time. Perhaps we should focus on the Hawaiian islands and the fact that they were all created by the same general process over the same hot spot. Her theory requires the time between island creation to be rather narrow. Ignoring the radiometric dating as she does, which also disproves her theory, let's just consider the difference in erosion between the islands themselves. How could there be any significant difference there? They were created essentially at the same time in Faith's model. Big tectonic movement and coasting to a stop although the stop has not been realized, conveniently.
Unfortunately for Faith's model the rate of island formation alone doesn't seem to occur fast enough, let alone the time required for erosion. Loihi is the nail in the coffin but I'm sure Faith will put that "silly putty" of hers to work somehow.
quote:
QUESTION
I heard that a new Hawaiian island called Loihi is forming. When can I go there?
ANSWER
You can plan a vacation on the island of Loihi in 50,000 years.
Page not found - Maui Vacations - Jon's Maui Info
Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1832 by Faith, posted 02-03-2014 7:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 1878 of 1896 (718211)
02-05-2014 1:44 PM


Hawaiian Islands again
quote:
Around 300-500 AD Polynesians from the South Pacific, probably the Marquesas Islands, found the Hawaiian Islands in double-hulled voyaging canoes.
http://www.deephawaii.com/hawaiianhistory.htm
History of Hawaii
Page not found - Hale Maluhia Country Inn
So now Faith's model of a tectonic bump and the slowing down to the present rate is shortened by 1500 years.
So that leaves roughly 2,500 years for Faith's plate movement. There are 8 islands so at best each island has just over 300 years to form. But there is the underwater chain to consider. Wouldn't the formation of that chain of seamounts take at least half the available time away for the Hawaiian Islands formation? That leaves about 150 years for each island to form.
(50,000/150=333) So there is a factor of 333 disagreement between the observed rate of island formation as displayed by Loihi and the rate necessary for Faith's model to be credible.
I see last night I lost my board virginity. I must take my leave now to make confession to a priest.

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 1882 of 1896 (718700)
02-08-2014 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1881 by saab93f
02-07-2014 6:14 AM


Re: mountains
Have you done or do you know of any calculations about the amount of energy required/released from superfast continental drift?
The energy of motion for the Lithosphere at 20ft per day is not all that fantastic, not quite 6 little boys.
mass of lithosphere = 1.365x10^23kg (I'm depending on this figure being accurate)
http://www.madsci.org/...rchives/1999-11/943288749.Es.r.html
The problem with her model is a cause for the initial separation. If they moved under the influence of currents why don't they continue to move at that rate? The arbitrary current that appears out of no where and then disappears again for no reason doesn't sit well with her claim of no divine intervention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1881 by saab93f, posted 02-07-2014 6:14 AM saab93f has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1884 by saab93f, posted 02-09-2014 6:35 AM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(3)
Message 1883 of 1896 (718703)
02-08-2014 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1827 by Faith
02-03-2014 6:20 PM


More evidence for Faith to not consider.
1433
Faith writes:
shalamabobbi writes:
Surely you realize that the flood would deposit this load onto the ocean floor as well as onto whatever is left of the continents?
Yes I assume it did.
1824
shalamabobbi writes:
What should be expected from someone who starts off the thread with evidence against the global flood and sees in it an argument for a global flood? Message 6
Faith writes:
the fact of the different sediments and that they are so neatly separated and demarcated by sharp dividing lines between them.
See the first item on the list.
1827
Faith writes:
Of course you have nothing to say about how you think it is against the Flood.
How about this - since the ocean floor was buried under this load in your model that became the geologic column then the coral reefs were all buried.
quote:
Coral reefs teem with life, covering less than one percent of the ocean floor, but supporting about 25 percent of all marine creatures.
How did that 25% survive the flood without the coral reefs? But more importantly how did the reefs existing today grow in the time available since the flood??
quote:
We will here concentrate on one atoll - Eniwetok - as an example of how we can determine the age of a reef. This reef was thoroughly investigated by deep core drillings in preparation for its use as a test-site for a hydrogen bomb explosion. This atoll is roughly circular with all the standard characteristics of a growing reef. It rests upon an extinct volcano, as expected, and the volcano rises about two miles above the ocean floor.
The reef itself is 4,610 feet tall. Examination of the material from the bore holes reveals that this is a normal reef that formed from the cementing together of corals and lime-secreting algae. (This algae is different from the kind that lives within the corals.) In addition, three unconformities (discontinuities in the growth of the reef) were located at depths of 300, 1000, and 2780 feet. These unconformities contain pollen from seed-bearing shrubs and trees, which indicates there were periods when the reef surface was above sea level (and so no coral growth at the surface) which lasted long enough for land plants to colonize the surface.
With this information we are ready to calculate the age of the Eniwetok reef. All we need to do is divide the height of the reef by the rate at which it grew. This calculation is rather like finding how long it would take to travel a certain distance. The time is calculated by dividing the distance to be travelled by the speed or rate of travel. For example, if one is to travel 150 miles and one's average rate of speed is 50 miles per hour, then the trip will take 150/50 = 3 hours to make the trip, not allowing for stops along the way. Just think of the height of the coral as the distance travelled and the rate of coral growth as the speed.
Research indicates that maximum rates of reef growth are about 8 millimeters per year, determined by examining the present growth rates of numerous reefs in the vicinity of Eniwetok. Admittedly, one may question whether the growth rate wasn't perhaps faster for this particular reef, but there are limits to how fast corals can grow. Growing biological systems obey strict physical and chemical laws relating to metabolism, reproduction, and intake of nutrients. This last item is particularly important because the rate of growth of coral depends on the amount of dissolved calcium carbonate it can extract from the seawater. Calcium carbonate, though, is rather insoluble, so there is not a large concentration of it in ocean water. Thereby reef growth is limited to a fraction of an inch per year.
Thus 8 millimeters per year cannot be far from the actual growth rate of the Eniwetok corals. Using this value, the age of the reef is calculated by dividing 4,610 feet by 8 millimeters (about .3 inch) per year, which is about 175,000 years. But this is a minimum age since we have not taken into account the time periods (represented by the unconformities mentioned above) when the reef was not growing. Nor have we taken into account the time necessary to form the volcanic base on which the reef grew.
Recently, further calculations for the rate of reef growth have been based on the concentration of dissolved calcium carbonate in seawater and upon the rate at which corals can absorb it and manufacture their shells. This rate turns out to be only about 5 millimeters per year, which means that the Eniwetok reef is more like 280,000 years old, not counting pauses in growth. A similar analysis for the much larger Grand Bahama Reef reveals an age of 790,000 years. And again, this is a minimum age, since that reef also contains numerous unconformities.
Age of Coral Reefs
Of course you have nothing to say about how you think it is possible for the reefs to grow so quickly. YECs are off here by a factor of 35. But even if that were possible which it isn't then you still have this problem:
quote:
Subsidence as a Limiting Factor of Reef Growth
And there is one more simple reason why such high estimates assumed by AIG and others are entirely unreasonable. The reason is this -- the net growth of the reef can only be as fast as the net subsidence of the seamount or platform on which it is growing. This is a limiting factor. Thus, even if a reef could grow at, say, 3cm per year rather than around 1cm or less as virtually all of the empirical estimates show, the reef can still only grow to the surface of the water. Where rates of subsidence of seamounts can be measured, it is only a few mm per year. Subsidence rates have been estimated with high precision for the Hawaiian Islands, which are similar in most respects to the submerged seamount atop which the Eniwetok atoll rests. These islands are subsiding at only a few mm per year.
Carbon dating of drowned reefs on the side of Hawaii show that it has subsided at this slow rate for hundreds of thousands of years. In fact, its a little more interesting than that. You can actually predict the radiometric ages of a drowned coral reef, with considerable accuracy, simply by dividing the depth in mm by the observed subsidence rates in mm per year.
Radiometric ages of Hawaiian corals compared to ages predicted by extrapolating observed subsidence rate of 2.7mm per year. Judging by the close correlation between predicted age and actual age, the rate of subsidence for the island of Hawaii has remained very close to 2.7mm per year throughout at least the last half-million years.
But for argument's sake, let's disregard the radiometric dates. Do any YECs have a plausible explanation for the growth of a 4600ft thick reef in 4500 years of post-flood time? And if YECs really think reefs can grow at rates of 100-400mm per year or more, when can we expect to see the research documenting this, and the evidence showing that the required conditions for this were somehow satisfied throughout post-flood times, while not being satisfied anywhere today? Remember, even if we multiply the fastest observed reef growth rates by a factor or 10, and assume *continuous* maximum growth rates, and assumed *no* erosional breaks or storm damage, and assumed that subsidence was somehow *greatly* accelerated, we would *still* need 14,000 years for the growth of Eniwetok.
same ref as before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1827 by Faith, posted 02-03-2014 6:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024