Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Goin Back Up!!

1. Imo, I say, Imo, de deep flood did indeedy drop down.
2. The atmosphere was thick and high before the flood and provided a perfect climate for then relatively smooth planet earth which had small oceans and likely about 70% of the planet's surface continent.
3. The thin crusts of earth sank into the molten center, creating the deep oceans via the weight of the enormous volumn of water.
4. The weight of the huge volumn of water produced enough weight force to push the displaced molten earth core under the continents and raise up the mountain ranges. Thus the fact that most, I say most, are near the coasts.
5. According to the prophets, we're headed for big time drought and global warming.
6. According to the prophet John, a meteor will likely hit an ocean, wiping out a third of the ships.
7. Add up these, i.e. drought, global warming and meteor and/or huge continental shift and you have big time evaporation and possibly a bit of an adjustment in the position of planet earth.
8. The Biblical prophets predict a time coming on earth where men again live long lives and the climate of earth get so good that the "plowman will overtake the reaper"
9. The Biblical prophets predict that the sun and moon will be darkened some and when Christ Messiah returns to earth, he will come "with clouds." The world's atmosphere will become cloudy as drought and heat prevail.
10. The prophets predict violent weather and earthquakes, etc for "latter days".
11. One of the last things to happen in latter days is this humungus worldwide earthquake that levels all cities, islands and mountains. (This, imo, due to the evaporation of the oceans and the rewarping of earth's surface to preflood relatively smooth surface.
10. I'm adding this all up to conclude that the super climate which was in place before Noah's flood will indeed return to planet earth, essentially making it again a terrarium type environment.I know this is RADICAL STUFF, but then, so was Noah's flood and soooo much else we read in this fantastic supernatural book we call the Bible.

2. In the Bible it says that the waters rose to cover the
mountains. Therefore, the mountains already existed and the
earth was not flatter than nowadays.

Which has the higher density, water or rock? Can you propose some mechanism whereby water, density about 1.0 kg/liter, can flow into low spots and force rock, density 2.6 or more, upward by any significant amount? Try it on a seesaw at a local playground: do the experiment as to the depth of water required to raise a foot of rocks. Then compare your results to the bathymetry/altimetry of the west coast of South America, and get back to us on your results.

quote:

---

2. In the Bible it says that the waters rose to cover the
mountains. Therefore, the mountains already existed and the
earth was not flatter than nowadays.

---

That's why I said, 'relatively' smooth earth. Yes there would've likely been what was referred to as mountains and oceans, but the mountains would've been like our foothills and the oceans small and relatively shallow. This also requires much less water to cover the earth than would be required after everything settled to what we observe.

quote:

---

Which has the higher density, water or rock? Can you propose some mechanism whereby water, density about 1.0 kg/liter, can flow into low spots and force rock, density 2.6 or more, upward by any significant amount? Try it on a seesaw at a local playground: do the experiment as to the depth of water required to raise a foot of rocks. Then compare your results to the bathymetry/altimetry of the west coast of South America, and get back to us on your results.

---

Notice I alluded to the great volumn of water. Yes, rock is far denser than water, but 70% of the earth is ocean. The volumn of water would've overpowered the density factor of rock. Then too, I would assume that hot liquid earth core would be somewhat less dense than cold hard solid granite and more suitable for uplift after which it would cool and harden.

Yea, that's about what it looks like -- "assume" in other words you're making it all up. LOL

"Overpowered the density factor?"!!!!
As you put this huge volume of water on land of gentle topography, it's going to cover all the topography in preference to displacing rock upward. If it does do any displacing, it will be in a ratio of around 1 meter uplift for every 3 meters of water depth - a ratio like those of the densities.
And if the hot liquid core were less dense than the rock on top of it, how would it manage to stay on bottom? The upper rock is capable of motion in your scenario, but it's just going to float there on something less dense than itself??
The Earth's core, in any case, has a density near 8 kg/L, as it's largely metallic iron. It's denser than rock - that's why it's at the core!And "cool and harden" how quickly, do you think? Lord Kelvin, calculations on this, back in the 1800's well before radioactivity was discovered to be keeping the Earth's insides hot, indicated that 24,000,000 years was a minimum figure for cooloff to our present state. Don't you think that the scientists that study plate tectonics and earthquakes might have a few more current calculations on how fast 1000-km thick slabs of hot rock cool and solidify?[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 05-24-2003]

That's ludicrous. Density doesn't work like that. No matter how much water you have, or how little rock, rock never floats. (Except for rocks less dense than water, obviously, like volcanic pumice.)Anyway, you mean "70% of the earth's surface is water." By volume, the earth is almost totally silicon, except for the iron.Of course, everything I know about deep planetary geology came from watching The Core...

Your message is just a grocery list of assertions with no supporting evidence. You can't replace evidence-based scientific theories with fairy tales. As already pointed out in some of the messages, parts of your scenario don't make sense on even an elementary level.Your scenario is appropriate for faith-based belief, but if you want it to be considered as a replacement for currently accepted scientific views then you'll need to present the evidence underlying it so that it may we assessed, evaluated and compared with the evidence for current geological views.--Percy

Some good points have been made to refute my thinking as to how the water would sink the thin crust down into the core.Question 1. What then made the ocean as deep as it is?Question 2. If the continents have allegedly been moving about for millions of years, what has kept them from eventually filling the ocean depts with a smoothing out effect on the earth.

Buzsaw
I think both your questions are based on the same mispreception. You seem to be thinking of the oceans as holes of some sort, as depressed and the continents as the "normal" level.It is (well sort of) the reverse of that. The continents float on the surface of the earth. They are made of material that is lighter than the underlying basalt. They are like giant icebergs.They are pushed around by the stir of the mantle underneath them like a scum on hot coffee. They move as mostly solid lumps and don't smooth anything out.

Hi Buzsaw,It might be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the views of modern geology by reading an elementary geological text. That doesn't mean you'd have to accept these views, but it would acquaint you with the available evidence and current thinking around that evidence so that you'd know ahead of time when you're making proposals that contradict what we already have some convincing evidence for.My favorite introductory geological text, definitely written for the layman, is Earth Story by Simon Lamb and David Sington. A similar text, but more techical, is Building Planet Earth by Peter Cattermole.--Percy

quote:

---

I think both your questions are based on the same mispreception. You seem to be thinking of the oceans as holes of some sort, as depressed and the continents as the "normal" level.
It is (well sort of) the reverse of that. The continents float on the surface of the earth. They are made of material that is lighter than the underlying basalt. They are like giant icebergs.

​

They are pushed around by the stir of the mantle underneath them like a scum on hot coffee. They move as mostly solid lumps and don't smooth anything out.

---

Thanks Ned. Not really. I understand the crust over the mantle is thick an thin, depending on where you are. At the Ocean bottoms it is generally thin. I assume you to believe the mountains are allegedly formed by the shifting and shoving process of the movement of the continents. My question is that if all this movement is going on with plates of the crust bumping around over the millions of years, how can the deep oceans remain deep in all this alleged stuff?? Where'm I goin wrong??

quote:

---

My favorite introductory geological text, definitely written for the layman, is Earth Story by Simon Lamb and David Sington. A similar text, but more techical, is Building Planet Earth by Peter Cattermole.

---

Thanks Percy. In the mean time, could you address my two questions briefly?[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-25-2003]

The question is still a bit confused I think. The continents remain high because they are light not the oceans remaining deep. The ocean bottoms are wide plains with occastional deep trenchs. (a geologist might want to correct me). The trenchs are caused when the ocean bottom dives under the continent. So to some degree you're sort of right. The oceans are flat with the bumps filled in by sediment.Here one picture of the topography.
http://mscserver.cox.miami.edu/MSC111/Lectures/Lec04.htmNot the oceans bottoms are more or less flat with the mid ocean ridges pushed up and the ocassional hot spot mountain chain. They stay this way because the cotinents don't plow over them. The ocean bottoms are formed at the mid ocean ridge and destroyed at the subduction trenchs. The continents don't get into this. The continents are pushed around by these moving ocean bottoms which have been described as "conveyor belts".Is that clearer?