|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6247 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Where did the flood waters come from and where did they go? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:The topic of the thread is "where did the flood waters come from and where did they go?" I would consider water in the ocean basins ocean water, and water deflected from the ocean basins and inundating the continents 'flood water'. Therefore, I've answered where the flood water came from--that it include a variation in the total volume of water on the earth isn't a prerequesite of this question. Nevertheless, Randy's first post included the following:
quote:Aside from the fact that half of Randy's post (including this segment) has nothing to do with 'where did the flood waters come from and where did they go', he brought up these other points that I had addressed in earlier posts. Now I am a bit confused as to how we decide what the topic of the thread is--is it derived from the "thread topic" or from the questions and various topics addressed in the initial post? -Chris Grose "...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Randy, message 1, writes: The question is, what was the source of sufficient water to cover the earth 15 cubits above the mountains and where did these water go after the flood? Percy, message 89, writes: The topic of the thread is where did the water come from and where did it go. Fluctuations in sea level due to tectonic processes do not require the addition or subtraction of water. Fluctuations in sea level do add water onto the continents, but not the total volume of water of the oceans/seas. Catastropic Plate Tectonics could supply the water for a great flood, but not a "cover the earth 15 cubits above the mountains" flood. All in all, we have the muddled mess of using old Earth evidence to try to support a young Earth "vision". The root of the problem goes back to the simple question "How old is the Earth?". Until a YEC can support there being a young Earth, there is no real rational debate possible per a young Earth "great flood". Or are TC and TB arguing an old Earth and a young flood? Well, another muddled Moose message (mMm). Perhaps best ignored. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:--I would say that we should take this into another thread, but I guess I would consider this a sidelined point, but I don't see any point in doing that. Anyways, yes I am saying that thicker oceanic lithosphere results in lithosphere subsiding into the mantle. This results in increased ocean depth above that thicker lithosphere. It is not the opposite of what is normally the case--a locus of thicker lithosphere (assuming it is stable lithosphere and is not impregnated by upwelling plumes below or is being flexured by a nearby trench, etc.)is generally a locus of deeper ocean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:Yes, I guess there is a little confusion in this thread. So I guess Randy would have to retract applicability of his question to CPT because CPT does not have such an issue? quote:CPT is an underdeveloped theory. Ultimately all these questions will lead back to 'how old is the earth'. But that does not mean subsidiary potentially falsifiable questions cannot be formulated and answered. -Chris Grose "...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
If the volume of the oceans remained constant, where did the rain water come from?
Or are you suggesting the rains were nothing more than what we'd see today and most of the inundation was actually the result of tectonism? This message has been edited by roxrkool, 06-24-2005 09:25 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
TrueCreation writes: quote:The topic of the thread is "where did the flood waters come from and where did they go?" I would consider water in the ocean basins ocean water, and water deflected from the ocean basins and inundating the continents 'flood water'. Therefore, I've answered where the flood water came from--that it include a variation in the total volume of water on the earth isn't a prerequesite of this question. Your interpretation is inconsistent with Randy's post, you may want to read Message 1 again. Every scenario Randy raised, including Baumgardner whom he associated with "fountains of the deep", included added water. Right up front he asks, "The question is, what was the source of sufficient water to cover the earth 15 cubits above the mountains and where did these water go after the flood?" I wish you'd cut the obfuscation. You've been here a long time, and I know you're aware that Randy's question would never have been asked of a scenario that is just the rising and subsiding of the earth's surface. There's no mysterious appearing and disappearing water in this scenario. Randy was posing a question that most mainstream Creationist viewpoints have a problem with: they have no source for the water. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:So I guess the topic of the thread is not derived only from the "thread topic" field, but from the first thread post as well? I guess that when read correctly, you are right that it is clear that Randy wants the question answered "what was the source of sufficient water to cover the earth 15 cubits above the mountains and where did these water go after the flood?" I am just saying that it appears unfair that Randy can make assertions in his first post that are not on his own topic and let them go unrefuted because it would be off topic to refute them. -Chris Grose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:Yes indeed. However I would guess that that 'rain' would be a little more intense depending on your location. But that isn't really relevant to this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
TB says:
"We're not claiming to be able to inundate today's world." TB I was under the impression that you were a YECer. If so, that means you would place the flood at approximately 2000 BCE, no? In geological time, that is "today's world". That means you have to account for enough water to cover Mt. Everest. All 28,000 + feet. Sorry. As for Baumgartner, I am sorry but I can't take "creationist computer models" seriously. As has been said, "garbage in, garbage out." If one feels free to ignore inconvenient physical laws anything is possible On edit: Make that all 29,000 + feet. This message has been edited by deerbreh, 06-24-2005 10:51 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
deerbreh,
Assuming TB argues in favor of CPT ("recolonization model" or not); If you understand what is geodynamically implicit in CPT, you probably should be hesitant to say that the waters would have to reach the height of Mt. Everest. However I will leave it to TB to clarify what he means by "We're not claiming to be able to inundate today's world." Because indeed it does seem to imply that the earths current topography (or at least hypsography) has been essentially unaltered throughout "the flood".
quote:I don't want to derail this topic anymore by entertaining this topic here, but perhaps you could open a new thread in an attempt to support your assertions and address some of the responses I gave to these criticisms in post 64..? Or open a new thread and formulate your own thought-out criticisms of Baumgardner's modeling as to how it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" methodology and "ignores inconvenient physical laws".. Thanks. -Chris Grose This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-24-2005 11:18 PM "...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Nope, I am not going to bite. There is nothing to debate about. Baumgardner assumes speeded up radioactive decay rates and rapid plate tectonic movement, does he not? That is "ignoring inconvenient physical laws" imo. If someone takes that position they are basically saying "God did it." So from a scientific standpoint there is nothing to discuss. It is time to cut to the chase on this topic.
How did we get enough water to cover Mt. Everest and where did the water go? Either answer that or concede the point. It is as simple as that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
TrueCreation writes: I am just saying that it appears unfair that Randy can make assertions in his first post that are not on his own topic and let them go unrefuted because it would be off topic to refute them. Clearly I was not saying that, and I don't believe you really thought that's what I was saying. I'm going to explain it one more time, but I'm also going to suspend you for 24 hours to make clear that the responsibility for contributing productively to discussion lies with you and is not mitigated by the amount of energy you're willing to devote to obfuscation. And also to make clear that I was serious when I requested you take moderation issues to the appropriate thread. Since you'll probably claim I misunderstood you, let me also say that if you insist on jousting with moderators about the Forum Guidelines then it is incumbent upon you to ensure you make your point very clearly. We don't have infinite time and we're not perfect. We attempt to run the site for the benefit of all, and those who begin to attract too large a percentage of moderator time often find themselves with frequent temporary suspensions. It might not even be something the member is consciously aware of, but the moderator team cannot possibly accomodate themselves to the wide variety of idiosyncracies of the member population. While many of the moderators stand willing and ready to explain things in detail to those who ask, the history of such attempts is that mostly only the permanently and incorrigibly disgruntled and/or bewildered ask. And so we have come to the point where those who can't get with the program are encouraged to find other venues. The question that is the topic of this thread is posed to Creationist scenarios that require water to be added to the total volume of water already on earth. The question wouldn't even come up if these scenarios did not exist. It isn't that you're not permitted to mention that there are scenarios that don't require added water. That's a very interesting and relevant point to raise in this thread. But educating us about such scenarios does not address the thread's question. If Randy made an error of fact or logic in his opening post then you're certainly permitted to rebut or correct it, but that doesn't change the nature of the question he asked, or the lack of relevance of your scenario to his question. Alternatively, perhaps you can show he asked the wrong question. Or perhaps there are other aspects of his question that deserve consideration that haven't yet been recognized. Bottom line: I want straight talk here, not a run-around, and certainly not charges that I'm prohibiting rebuttal when I'm trying to keep a thread on-topic. New threads can always be proposed. Any viewpoint is permitted as long as you follow the Forum Guidelines, and number 1 is to follow moderator requests. This didn't even used to be a rule, but too many times moderators were treated like potted plants, or even worse, like someone else to debate, only with the topic being the Forum Guidelines. Gee, just like now! It isn't the moderators' job to convince someone they're wrong before taking action. It is the members' job to follow moderator requests, and if they really don't like them and think they're unfair then there are plenty of other venues out there. You're a good kid, Chris, extremely bright and likable, but don't bullshit me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
My understanding of TB's position is that the 'Biblical Flood' occurred prior to the uplift of Mt. Everest - sometime between the Precambrian and the Silurian or Devonian - when apparently there were no high mountains (an unsupported assumption as far as I can tell).
That is to say, the topography we see today, is not yesterday's (read: pre- and syn-flood) topography. Topography and geometry of the continents as it exists today is the result of tectonism after the flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
But that is not a YEC viewpoint unless one assumes rapid plate tectonic movements (which violate all kinds of physical laws) to get to the topography we have today in 4000 years. Saying "God sent the water and took it away again when he was done messing with us" would be a more parsimonius explanation.
On edit: Not only do you have to raise all of those mountains up in 4000 years - you also have to erode down old mountains such as the Appalachians AND revegetate them. Then there are all of those buttes and mesas in the Southwest.....Nope I still want to hear how we get enough water to cover Mt. Everest. This message has been edited by deerbreh, 06-25-2005 12:17 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
roxrkool writes: My understanding of TB's position is that... And you might have it exactly right, but who knows for sure? I would like TB to make as clear statements of what he's proposing as you just did, only more complete, of course. I will try to discourage discussions that by necessity must focus more on deciphering the scenario than on the scenario itself. Vagueness will not be permitted as a debate tactic, and neither will, "It's still early days."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024