Re-enactments of the Noah's Ark voyage?

Proven. Observed Instances of SpeciationThis link gives repeated instances of populations giving rise to new species through various kinds of reproductive isolation.

KidsAstronomy.com <<<--------- great site! I suggest you check it out!All of the asteroids put together would be smaller than the moon. According to the department of physics at UW Madison, "all asteroids put together would be only 1500 km in diameter." click here Well, the moon is 3,479km in diameter, and it came from the earth. (Of course, the theory is that the moon came from a collision between the earth and another large body. I have been trying to find out, based on this theory, why it's diameter is so incredibly centered! Why is it so round? You tell me because I cannot find it!) Anyways, it is not inconceivable for the moon to come from the earth, so why is it inconceivable for the asteroids, with their extremely low densities, to come from the earth?Obviously, as with most creation hypotheses, this explanation of origins requires a creator. The scientific instruments that we have in our modern world cannot detect the existence of a creator! Creationists are not trying to prove this! However, we can scientifically prove that a global flood is possible, given the right conditions. One of these conditions is the existence of a huge amount of water somewhere on, in, or above the earth. Well it is quite impossible for it to have been above, as the vapor canopy "Dr. Hovind" guys would have people believe. This is obvious. Is it impossible that it could have been under the earths crust? There is evidence of this: click here and click here. How can water be found at these depths? Rock pores are closed at these pressures. The water did not seep through the crust. It shouldn't be there at all if it came from above the crust.Please explain to me how the preflood conditions explained by Walt Brown are so impossible? And if they aren't, than please show me the error in his calculations (not just some trivial error, but an error that disproves everything) and explain why it is impossible for the pressures that he hypothesizes to launch this much porous and meager rock in to space?And if Noah started his "voyage" two thousand miles away from any sort of crack in the earth, would it be that impossible for the water to cool before it reached him? You think that the water would remain at eight hundred degrees for how long of a period in the earth's cold upper atmosphere? I think that it may have cooled enough not to kill Noah.Why don't you explain the force that causes plates to subduct? Some pretty amazing stuff happens either way (PT or HP), and it calls for pretty amazing explanations either way.I will do some calculations at school today.

Size. The moon is sufficiently large that its gravity forces it into that shape.

quote:

---

Please explain to me how the preflood conditions explained by Walt Brown are so impossible?

---

Sure. Allow me to elaborate on the geological aspect at least.From Walt's site:

quote:

---

Is there enough water to cover all the earth’s preflood mountains in a global flood? Most people do not realize that the volume of water on earth is ten times greater than the volume of all land above sea level.

​

Most of the earth’s mountains consist of tipped and buckled sedimentary layers. Because these sediments were initially laid down through water as nearly horizontal layers, those mountains must have been pushed up after the sediments were deposited. If the effects of compressing the continents and buckling up mountains were reversed, the oceans would again flood the entire earth. Therefore, the earth has enough water to cover the smaller mountains that existed before the flood. (If the solid earth were perfectly smooth, water depth would be 9,000 feet everywhere.)

---

Where to start... Ok. Many of the Earth's mountains are NOT composed of tilted and buckled layers. Those formed by sediments are NOT all formed due to water currents. I have seen no indication that Walt has taken any section of tilted and folded rock and reversed process (called line balancing). He neglects to mention that if he did this, the total area of the Earth would be increased phenomenally, i.e. beyond the actual physical area seen today. There is no geological evidence to support his idea.Most of the rest of his site turns my stomach. He displays a complete ignorance of even the basis of geology - his ridiculous theory is based on nothing more than his own need to prove that the flood could have happened, despite the fact that there is no geological evidence to support it and there never will be.So why are you defending him? Do you think that the flood happened? Or are you merely interested in his theory? It's so hard to tell sometimes.The Rock Hound

This is getting off the thread topic, but to answer your post, there is evidence of transitions from one species to another, ample evidence.(1) Foraminifer (click) form a virtually complete skeletal record from the present back into the age of the dinosaurs with many many many speciation events. This is like a jigsaw puzzle with over 90% of the picture in place. (2) Therapsids (click) show the transition from reptilian jaw and ear to the mammalian jaw and ear. Note in particular the transitional fossils with the double-jointed jaw as the transition progresses. That's a little bigger than just speciation.As important as all the transitional fossils found, is the total lack of any "stasis" species that extend from the present into the deep distant past. All species disappear in the depths of time and their beginning points in the ancient record are staggered throughout the record. The problem for the creationist is to provide an alternate explanation of all the fossil evidence that is at least as consistent and complete as the scientific one. This is the creationist challenge:

• Trace one vertebrate back to the supposed day of its creation, showing that it has not evolved at all in that time, one that is listed as having been created. Note - this must be a complete line of fossils, no gaps allowed.
• Provide day of creation to nearest century and references for the date and the fossils in question.
• Failing that: trace one vertebrate back to the supposed day of the flood, showing that it has not evolved at all in that time, one that is listed as having been on the ark. Note - this must be a complete line of fossils, no gaps allowed.
• Provide day of flood to nearest half century and references for the date and the fossils in question, and show corroborating evidence for the flood to have occurred at that time in every part of the world, including evidence of a mass extinction event.

Further reading at TalkOrigins.org - Transition FAQ (click)Note that I require as complete an alternate explanation as creationists are asking scientists for.Let the games begin ...Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

What "low densities?" Some are even largely iron - if some of the small ones have low densities, it's because they're made up of rubble with voids between the pieces. But the pieces themselves are rock. And if the asteroids blew off of the earth in a cannon-like event like that, they would of necessity be in orbits that intersect Earth's. They aren't, or we'd all be dead by now. Like the first of your links said - through chemical dehydration of buried minerals. And if a pore space is filled with water, that little droplet will be in pressure equlibrium with the rock above it and perfectly capable of supporting weight. Ask the people in Long Beach, California, where pulling oil out of the sandstone beneath caused the surface to sink several feet. It held things up just fine until we let the pressure off. How would it lose that heat? Conduction would require a greater mass of something cold to lose heat to. Radiation wouldn't be too fast, and heat would radiate down to the cool surface just as readily as into space. Convection requires mass, too, and would heat the surface in preference to outer space. The hydrosphere weighs many times as much as the atmosphere, and water has a much larger heat capacity than air does. I can get you some calculations this evening, but you won't like them.

Yes, they do have low densities relative to the materials they are made of.
http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Aug99/asteroidDensity.htmlWalt cites the radiometer effect in order to explain the orbits of asteroids. I would like someone to please show me experimentation (or a well documented article) showing the amount of time needed for the radiometer effect to take effect. I could not find any information (it's hard to find basic information and facts on the internet for anything isn't it?). Until I see something than I am very suspicious about the rebuttals which the evolution-biased members of this site are going to state.

---

Could you please give me a link to some more information on this completely (in my knowledge) untested hypothesis explaining the appearance of water and crushed granite below depths where pores allow water? I assume that Walt's hypothesis is just as valid as yours. I sure wasn't able to find any more information about this after scouring google. There isn't even very much information talking about this random appearance of water, let alone an explanation of your hypothesis (besides the one on my link). Please redirect me if I am mistaken.

---

I think that you are forgetting the extreme pressure differences that Walt Brown is hypothesizing. These differences would cause rapid cooling. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure that you completely overlooked this one.

I think that this issue can be taken to a more geologically oriented thread? This one is about re-enactments of the voyage.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Species? The foggy definition of the word "species" is what causes this argument to perpetuate! I hardly saw much more than extreme variation! This is not macro-evolution! This is pure natural selection! If your definition of a new species is one that will not mate with extreme variation, than racists are a new species!

Well, I didn't bring this stuff up. Good old Mr. Literal insisted that everything needed to be accounted for.

Speaking of Mr. Literal, haven't seen him around lately. Weird.

From the website you apparently didn't read well enough:

quote:

---

Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community.

---

Now, if you want to debate this further you should open a new thread, but there's nothing foggy to me about "reproductive community". If you didn't know what species meant when you asked for evidence of new ones, how is that our problem? Of course not. There's no such thing - just evolution.Open a new thread if you want to continue this.

That was a very ignorant thing to say. It is like saying that every change in genetic information is a mutation. Not true. Not true at all.

Fine I will make a new thread. But it will be stupid because there will be no momentum, and as soon as it gets going and just randomly switches topic, you will force me to make yet another new thread.

Says you.There's no fundamental difference between micro and macroevolution. Just like there's no fundamental difference between walking around the block and walking to the grocery store. The only difference is distance, but they're both walking.