The Flood- one explanation

Awww Eta, you can do the real physics. Most of us know without any details that this is nonsense. Wouldn't it be a bit of fun to hit it at a more detailed level?Of course, on the other hand it really isn't wortht the trouble is it? It's not like this is going to have someone trying to get a government to introduce it to a science class. In fact, it would be interesting to watch even the relatively ignorant laught at it.

I think it may be borrowed from the old Velikovsky. Now that you've mentioned the name I would expect a thread on that any day now.

If you would like to back this up I will open another thread for it, just let me know.

Hey, thanks, I didn't know anyone was looking into it before Wegner.What is the kind of creationist that he was? Do you have any writings of his on the topic?Was he a young-earther? He was far enough back that the current estimates for the earth's age would be considered to be "young" by our standards (millions instead of billions of years).Was he a creationist in that he thought God created all life? A significant percentage of scientist today do too. But we wouldn't call them "creationists" in the present way that is used.Also:

quote:

---

The belief that continents have not always been fixed in their present positions was suspected long before the 20th century; this notion was first suggested as early as 1596 by the Dutch map maker Abraham Ortelius in his work Thesaurus Geographicus. Ortelius suggested that the Americas were "torn away from Europe and Africa . . . by earthquakes and floods" and went on to say: "The vestiges of the rupture reveal themselves, if someone brings forward a map of the world and considers carefully the coasts of the three [continents]."

---

from:http://pubs.usgs.gov/...s/text/historical.html#anchor9449934but I would think that someone of that time would certainly be a creationist (somewhat in the modern sense).(An aside)
One way to view what a creationist is could be:
Someone who disagrees with the consensus scientific position on the age of the earth and / or the formation of life forms. (I guess you would end up tossing in physics, geology, etc).This is at least the way it is today.Since all scientists once thought the earth was much younger (even 6,000 years) and that life was created directly by God as it is today then the consensus position wasn't in conflict.It was these "creationists" that did the careful work which showed that the consensus had to be changed. It was wrong.What do you think the word means, John Paul?

This suggests that almost everyone before about 1900+ was a creationist. In fact, doesn't that make Darwin a creationist?

You missed the point of the post that you copied from Gene90.Your two lines above also are a bit contradictory. You have "no idea" of how to arrive at what the affect would be but "I'm in agreement...".Gene90 is saying that moving the whole mass of the atmosphere 29,000 feet closer to or further away from the centre of mass of the planet would have an insignificant affect on the air pressure at the new "sea levels".I'm not going to do the calculations but you know that gravitation force varies with the inverse square of the distance from the center of mass of the attracting body. (as long as you're outside the body).So what is the difference in the square of the earth's radius and the earth's radius plus or minus 29,000 feet? That is a way to get an idea of what the affect would be.In the case of the atmosphere being lifted the fact that it would stay the same total mass( well sort of there are a lot of things going on) and be spread over slightly more area might also have an affect but the reduced gravitational pull would make zippo difference.The high altitude affect is there because if we climb to the top of everest today we are leaving more than 2/3 of the atmosphere behind us -- underneath us. In the case of wrapping the globe in 29,000 feet of water the entire atmosphere would still be above us and pressing down nearly as hard as it does at todays sea level.This is my reasoning why there is no altitude problem for Noah.

How many time have I missed some obvious point? Don't answer that!! I don't want to know. I would like a count on posts on this site that express something like yours. How many of us have posted "I was wrong!".We have had 2 or 3 of the "approximately creationist" side manage that recently. I believe it is harder for them to do that and so am very impressed when they do.A count, by side of the debate, would still be interesting though.

But that is what is fun here. You can't get away with anything!I get a little tired sometimes when individuals argue some stupid little point to death (NOT naming names) but it is part of the cost of knowing that you can't cheat and get careless.------------------
Common sense isn't

Exactly, some of us on the science side in fact, "don't get it". Others do however and are just as much believers as you are.Most (maybe all) of us don't want to argue with your faith. Our disagreement is with the so called creation "scientists" who want to corrupt the educational system in support of thier beliefs. It is only the science side that we are concerned about. But since you are, as you say, not an expert, how do you know that they know what they are saying.If you ask around here or do a little research you will find that the sites and "experts" you might be using are very frequently wrong about the basic facts that they use and, in some cases, are lying.If you want to take things on faith by all means, do so. However, the nature of the universe around you isn't something that needs to be, or should be, taken on faith. Some of what you are told to take on faith about the natural world (NOT the supernatural) is simple wrong.