Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9049 total)
430 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 429 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,600 Year: 5,246/14,102 Month: 167/677 Week: 26/26 Day: 8/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4715
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 390 of 432 (880132)
07-30-2020 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by Minnemooseus
07-29-2020 11:51 PM


Re: Empty the oceans and pile the water on land, then drain back into oceans
Were the ocean basins not already full during "the flood"?

Yes, exactly.

Subtitle: Empty the oceans and pile the water on land, then drain back into oceans

Actually, yes, exactly that. But we must keep in mind that not all water is created equal. Water does cycle through all three states of matter, after all, so the water that piled up so deeply on land was water in its solid state.

 
The main problem for YECs is that the actual world-wide flood is (because it is still happening and is becoming worse) nothing like how they imagine it, so they have to come up with all kinds of impossible nonsense to try to explain everything away.

Here is basically how it works. There's the basic water cycle:

  1. Water in the liquid state fills the seas (of all descriptions; eg oceans, seas, lakes, marshland, etc). Please note that this step essentially empties your "ocean basins", though not completely.
  2. That liquid water evaporates into the gaseous state, water vapor.
  3. That water vapor condenses back into either the liquid or the solid state and falls as either virga (ie, rain that re-evaporates before it reaches the ground) or rain (liquid water that reaches the ground) or snow or ice (solid water which may either melt on the way down to become rain or else reach the ground still in its solid state). And I'm sure that you can come up with other variations if you put your mind to it.
  4. Liquid water that reaches the ground either soaks into the ground to add to the ground water, or it flows downhill to eventually reach the seas again (usually). Solid water will usually melt come the thaw and behave as liquid water would. Solid water that doesn't experience a thaw remains in the solid state and becomes the crux of the matter in the next section.
  5. That last step completes the basic water cycle which then repeats with evaporation.

There are situations in which more and more solid water fails to melt, fails to experience a thaw. Those situations are called ice ages.

In an ice age, snow just keeps piling up on the land as the water cycle keeps emptying the seas causing the sea level to drop -- there's your "Empty the oceans and pile the water on the land". And as the snow keeps piling up, it compresses and forms glaciers and large ice caps and so on.

Then at the end of an ice age, that ice starts to thaw and melt and flow back into the seas -- there's your "then drain back into oceans". As a result, the sea level starts to rise again, which is exactly what we are experiencing now.

It's really that simple and that obvious. The last ice age, the Wisconsian, ended about 13,000 years ago. When that happened, sea level was about 200 feet lower, from one source I read. That was when there were a number of land bridges such as across the Bering Strait and in the western and eastern parts of the islands of Indonesia and Papua/New Guinea. The latter explains Wallace's Line, in which separate islands on either side of the line have very similar land animals, yet the land animals on the west side of the line are quite different from the ones on the east side -- there's an ocean trench along the line that kept those two land bridges separate and prevented land animals from crossing that water barrier.

It should also be noted that the Persian Gulf is about 150 feet deep at its deepest, so during the ice age it was dry land. And since humans have a strong tendency to concentrate large populations on coast lines, it makes complete sense that they would have noticed it when the sea level rose and flooded out where they used to live. And that an oral tradition about that devastating situation would have developed and be passed down.

There were also some more sudden flooding events such as the Channeled Scablands in the American Northwest which were created by episodes of the sudden release of a large lake of glacial meltwater when its ice dam broke. There's also evidence that something similar happened at the Black Sea.

So then the actual world-wide flood is the rising of the sea level after the last ice age. And it is still happening as climate change is causing the ice caps to melt at an alarming rate.

That actual world-wide flood is actually happening. The one imagined by YECs didn't.

Edited by dwise1, : Added Wikipedia link for the water cycle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-29-2020 11:51 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Juvenissun, posted 07-30-2020 6:09 AM dwise1 has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4715
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 399 of 432 (880190)
07-30-2020 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by Juvenissun
07-30-2020 6:09 AM


Re: Empty the oceans and pile the water on land, then drain back into oceans
Please quote me accurately. I know that that is completely contrary to the nature of creationists, but it must be done nonetheless.

You quoted me as writing:

sic writes:

The main problem for YECs is that the actual world-wide flood is because it is still happening and is becoming worse nothing like how they imagine it, so they have to come up with all kinds of impossible nonsense to try to explain everything away.

That doesn't even make sense, the way that you had fouled up.

Instead, this is what I wrote:

DWise1 writes:

The main problem for YECs is that the actual world-wide flood is (because it is still happening and is becoming worse) nothing like how they imagine it, so they have to come up with all kinds of impossible nonsense to try to explain everything away.

Notice the parentheses which you omitted. And by omitting those parentheses you made my statement appear nonsensical. Breaking it down to explain it in terms that hopefully even you can understand, to get the basic sense of a sentence that contains parentheticals, first remove the parenthetical; thus:

quote:
The main problem for YECs is that the actual world-wide flood is nothing like how they imagine it, so they have to come up with all kinds of impossible nonsense to try to explain everything away.

That is of course a true statement, plus it is expressed far more clearly than the mess you had reduced it to. So what did the parenthetical do? It added that that actual world-wide flood is still happening and is becoming worse (just look at what's happening in Miami and any other coastal city).

So to reiterate, your problem is that you have completely unrealistic expectations for what a world-wide flood would be and so you have to make up all kinds of impossible nonsense to try in vain to support those unrealistic expectations. As you should have read already, even flood geologists have learned through direct experience that a great many of their ideas about geology have proven to be wrong.

If you disagree, then present your reasons for disagreeing. If you have no reasons to disagree (as will be evidenced by your not giving any), then simply say so.

The flood of a global size only happened ONCE in the history of the earth.

First, the global flooding from the rising of the sea levels is indeed of global size.

Second, it has happened repeatedly at the end of each ice age.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Juvenissun, posted 07-30-2020 6:09 AM Juvenissun has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4715
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 417 of 432 (880557)
08-07-2020 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by Juvenissun
08-03-2020 4:50 PM


Re: One Off Topic Note
Science: Data + Logic;
Theology: God + Logic.

Faith is only to God. The rest of theology CAN be explained by logic arguments. Systematic fiction will fail on logic.

OK, you ignorant idiot. Learn something about logic (almost literally my first class in college, praise be to CDR Spock).

All that logic can ever prove is the validity of its arguments, but never the truth. Anyone with any training in formal logic will know that from his very first lecture in the subject -- that is how very fundamental this fundamental truth is. Idiots such as you who are ignorant about logic would not know that.

Now, the thing with validity is that if you plug true premises into those intrticately valid logical syllogisms, then you should get a true conclusion. But if you plug in false premises, then your conclusions are fuck-all.

So then to recaputulate:

Science: Data + Logic;

The data of science it easy to verify. Therefore, the logic of science can easily lead to true conclusions since the premises (ie, data) are very easily verifiable as true. True premises fed into a valid syllogism yields a true conclusion. QEF

Theology: God + Logic.

"God" doesn't even have a definitive definition. Theology's premises are based on fallible MAN-created unfounded assumptions about "God" (whatever that could be). Unverifiable and mutually exclusive claims render your theology false from the very start.

Face it: you have nothing. That is why you have no other option but lies and deception.

Realize that and you can start on the road to recovery.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Juvenissun, posted 08-03-2020 4:50 PM Juvenissun has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by Juvenissun, posted 08-07-2020 6:31 PM dwise1 has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4715
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 426 of 432 (880604)
08-08-2020 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by Juvenissun
08-07-2020 6:31 PM


Re: One Off Topic Note
Yes, of course you have no response except to clutch your pearls and complain about the attack of the vapors my words caused you. Typical hypocritical creationist.

Did you at least finally learn something about logic? Or did you ignore that lesson in order to maintain your ignorance? Willfully maintaining ignorance is a clear example of idiocy. Therefore, the label of "ignorant idiot" does apply to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Juvenissun, posted 08-07-2020 6:31 PM Juvenissun has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021