Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood- one explanation
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 129 (73899)
12-17-2003 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by roxrkool
12-17-2003 6:36 PM


Re: Creationists
No the water level decreased. Ya see at the equator there is something a bulge. If the crust shifted that bwhich was once at the equator is no longer there. IOW if Tiahuanaco was at the equator before the shift it would have been at sea level due to the bulge. So now yes its altitude has changed- we do measure things from sea level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by roxrkool, posted 12-17-2003 6:36 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Eta_Carinae, posted 12-17-2003 9:29 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 78 by roxrkool, posted 12-17-2003 10:10 PM John Paul has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 77 of 129 (73911)
12-17-2003 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by John Paul
12-17-2003 8:59 PM


Re: Creationists
John Paul,
Physics does not work in the manner you require.
I pointed out (with a hint) in an earlier post that the way you describe basic physical laws we would have a huge whirlpool at the north pole.
Do you have any clue that what you are saying is pure lunacy.
Your physics knowledge is no better than a kid in junior high.
I don't mean to be rude BUT you are just wrong. This is not a disagreement on anything in scripture or creationism BUT you have fundamental physics WRONG.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 8:59 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 10:13 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 78 of 129 (73924)
12-17-2003 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by John Paul
12-17-2003 8:59 PM


Re: Creationists
Ah, I think I understand. You're saying that the water bulges at the equator, correct? And therefore if Tiahuanaco (South America) was at the equator (how long ago?), then the water, because it's bulging, would reach the docks of Tiahuanaco. Then, some cataclysmic event caused the plates/crust to suddenly shift, moving South America to its current position where the water does not bulge. Thus sea level drops and Tiahuanaco is left high and dry... so to speak.
Is that what you are proposing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 8:59 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 10:14 PM roxrkool has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 129 (73925)
12-17-2003 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Eta_Carinae
12-17-2003 9:29 PM


Re: Creationists
Eta, I will go with the people who know better than I on this one. IOW I will take Dr. Paul Back over you. Also, as I have pointed out, it is not my idea. Others more qualified than I formed it based on the evidence. I brought it here for a discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Eta_Carinae, posted 12-17-2003 9:29 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Eta_Carinae, posted 12-17-2003 10:47 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 86 by edge, posted 12-18-2003 12:11 AM John Paul has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 129 (73926)
12-17-2003 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by roxrkool
12-17-2003 10:10 PM


Re: Creationists
roxrkool-That is the basic premise- from what I have read.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by roxrkool, posted 12-17-2003 10:10 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by roxrkool, posted 12-17-2003 10:18 PM John Paul has replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 81 of 129 (73927)
12-17-2003 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by John Paul
12-17-2003 10:14 PM


Re: Creationists
JP, the problem with that scenario is that Tiahuanaco is still at the same elevation - 12,500'. The only thing that has *risen* and *fallen* is sea level. That means you still have your agricultural problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 10:14 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 11:02 PM roxrkool has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 82 of 129 (73932)
12-17-2003 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by John Paul
12-17-2003 10:13 PM


Re: Creationists
I can find no reference to a Dr. Paul Back.
Also from reading your blurb on him, I think my Physics qualifications outweigh his.
But this is immaterial.
You are screwing up basic classical mechanics. This isn't quantum gravity research, it is basic mechanics.
Can't you figure this out yourself?
If you brought it here for discussion why haven't you first figured it out for yourself?
Your opening statements about water moving at 1000 mph blah blah shows your just screwing up the basic physics.
[This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 12-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 10:13 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 11:04 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 129 (73934)
12-17-2003 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by roxrkool
12-17-2003 10:18 PM


Re: Creationists
The sea level change was said to be about 12,000 ft. That would put Tiahuanaco almost at sea level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by roxrkool, posted 12-17-2003 10:18 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by roxrkool, posted 12-18-2003 12:54 AM John Paul has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 129 (73935)
12-17-2003 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Eta_Carinae
12-17-2003 10:47 PM


Re: Creationists
What is the speed of the earth at the equator? Isn't it about 1000 mph? What am I screwing up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Eta_Carinae, posted 12-17-2003 10:47 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Eta_Carinae, posted 12-17-2003 11:35 PM John Paul has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 85 of 129 (73955)
12-17-2003 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by John Paul
12-17-2003 11:04 PM


Re: Creationists
Yes that is approx. correct linear velocity at the Earth's equatorial surface.
OK let me state a couple of things about your scenario.
1) Why would tilting the Earth (as you put it) change the rotation axis. The equator would still be the equator the poles would still be the poles. All that you have changed is the tilt of this axis with respect to the ecliptic.
To change the rotation axis itself ou would literally have to bring the Earth to a stop, and then restart it again with a new rotation axis. This is basically impossible.
2) Even to tilt it by the amount you mention (which as I said above would not change the rotation axis) would involve an interaction with another large body that would be almost guaranteed to destroy the Moon's orbit (it would not remain approx. circular or in the ecliptic plane.)
3) The Earth itself would be more than just tilted, it would be totally rearranged.
4) Though what you suggest CANNOT occur let's for a second suppose it could. Any interaction with another body would not be instantaneous. The change would be essentially adiabatic. The only way around this would be for the other body to be travelling ridiculously fast. BUT this is immaterial - the rotation axis is not going to change AND your scenario requires this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 11:04 PM John Paul has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 86 of 129 (73964)
12-18-2003 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by John Paul
12-17-2003 10:13 PM


Re: Creationists
quote:
Eta, I will go with the people who know better than I on this one.
Hmm, that would be a first as far as I know. In all the geological discussions we have had, you never deferred to anyone with more knowledge about geology...
Let's get this straight: you think that Tiahuanaco was at sea level some 4000 years ago and then when the orientation of the earth's spin changed the sea level dropped 12000 feet? In that case, where did the water go? Can you find other cities that are now under 12000 feet of water? If the spin axis is the same, why would there be a shift in the location of the water?
How does this all fit with a biblical interpretation? This whole scenario makes little sense as it stands, making it difficult to respond with anything other than incredulity. Can you amplify a bit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 10:13 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by roxrkool, posted 12-18-2003 1:04 AM edge has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 87 of 129 (73976)
12-18-2003 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by John Paul
12-17-2003 11:02 PM


Re: Creationists
Yes, SEA LEVEL change was 12,500 feet, but that still leaves Tiahuanaco at 12,500 feet. All you're doing is moving where 'sea level' is defined at. Sea level is arbitrary and has no effect on 'absolute' elevation.
Raising the level of water to the top of Mt. Everest doesn't changed the fact that it's summit (and the new and improved sea level) is at 29,000+ feet.
[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 11:02 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-18-2003 1:06 AM roxrkool has replied
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 12-18-2003 8:36 AM roxrkool has replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 88 of 129 (73980)
12-18-2003 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by edge
12-18-2003 12:11 AM


Re: Creationists
Hmmm... I thought he was postulating that it's still the same ocean, but that South America was at one time located so that Tiahuanaco straddled the equater. At that point and because the water at the equator "bulges" approximately 12,500 feet, Tiahuanaco would then be at 'sea level.' Thereby providing evidence that the ports at Tiahuanaco were actually oceanic ports rather than servicing Lake Titicaca.
Later, due to some cataclysmic event, the South American continent (and others, I presume) was sloshed over to it's current position. This event resulted in huge waves and massive continental flooding and is what the Bible refers to as the Flood.
Did I get it right, JP?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by edge, posted 12-18-2003 12:11 AM edge has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 89 of 129 (73982)
12-18-2003 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by roxrkool
12-18-2003 12:54 AM


Re: Creationists
quote:
Sea level is arbitrary and has no effect on 'absolute' elevation.
But it does define the zero elevation.
JP is trying to have sea level at that elevation. Define the number you put on that elevation any way you like. Say, define it as the distance from the center of the earth.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by roxrkool, posted 12-18-2003 12:54 AM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by roxrkool, posted 12-18-2003 10:08 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 90 of 129 (74052)
12-18-2003 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by roxrkool
12-18-2003 12:54 AM


Raising the level of water to the top of Mt. Everest doesn't changed the fact that it's summit (and the new and improved sea level) is at 29,000+ feet.
It does, though, raise the air column by the same amount, so that Everest now is at an atmospheric pressure equivalent to the old zero feet above sea level. That is, if we're talking about a global rise in sea level. A localized rise would have no such effect, of course.
JP had mentioned something about growing crops at 12,000 feet so I thought that might be relevant.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by roxrkool, posted 12-18-2003 12:54 AM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by roxrkool, posted 12-18-2003 10:22 AM crashfrog 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