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

I must interupt here - do you know anything at all about the composition of the Earth?The weight of the crust does press down on the interior - which is why the pressure increases to something unreal the deeper you go. This does not mean that the weight of the continents displaces the oceanic crust and causes it to rise - if that were the case we should see some change in the level of the present day sea floor, and we don't.No, we can't see the interior of the Earth. We do know what it is composed of because seismic surveying (especially during earthquakes) is very effective at telling us what we need to know. This is not something anyone needs to believe in, because it is solid, scientific fact that agrees with everything that is currently theorised in geology.Please read a book on plate tectonics before you start making claims about the subject.(Incidently I must warn people that The Core is total science fantasy - I have only heard about it, and I have already laughed my ass off several times over the plot.
I can't wait to see it )The Rock Hound

There seems to be some misconception here about the compsition of the Earth's crust that I'd like to clear up. The continental crust does not sit on top of the oceanic crust - geologists thought this was the case years ago, but its been more or less discounted today. The idea of the continental crust floating on or through oceanic crust is literally just a metaphor - a simplification of plate tectonics for non-geologists.Incidently, I can't help but feel that buzsaw isn't reading my posts -either that or the talk.origins page that completely refutes the idea of Noah's Flood just hasn't sunk in...Anyway the main bone of contention here seems to be that the weight of the water from the flood would have displaced the weaker thinner crusts under the oceans and pushed up the mountain ranges.Now here's the geologist talking... listen carefully...THIS IS NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE, AND DOES NOT EXPLAIN MODERN GEOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS.Sorry - I felt I had to write that in capitals. It is a bit important after all.The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

quote:

---

Since the prophecies and other supernatural stuff prove the Bible to be supernatural, I believe I have a more sound foundation than you.

---

Your entire foundation rests on your belief in a book written by human hands a few thousand years ago, instead of the evidence you can see with your own eyes right now. This is called faith, and generally it's not a good idea to mix it with science.Of course, if you believe that the flood happened you will look for - and probably find - evidence to this effect. The drilling in the Black Sea only proves that the area surrounding the Black Sea was flooded, not the entire world. If you are correct then there must be some evidence in Ireland, say - and every other country for that matter - of a major flood 4000 years ago. The fact is that there isn't - and your faith will not change this.

quote:

---

I take scriptures like this and begin on these foundation stones. Ever so slowly, archeology and science is forced to move toward acknowledging these scriptures with a growing number of adherants to them in academia among them.

---

Starting with an idea and trying to force the evidence to fit it is not scientific. Any scriptures can only be acknowledged when they are supported by fact. Science acknowledges that large scale flooding occured in the area of Mesapotamia (the "cradle of civilisation") - science has never acknowledged that there was a single, world-wide flood at any point in known history, because there is no evidence to support it.I am aware of the fact that you will probably never be convinced that the Bible is wrong, and for that I am sorry. Still, if you have an open mind, read this web page:Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd editionI don't know if I posted it before - it's a very interesting read.The Rock Hound

I see buzsaw has not replied to my post yet... I'm still waiting for him to get back on topic; i.e. evidence for a global flood, which, in my professional opinion, does not exist.All this debate about forest fires and global warming is irrelevent to the topic of Noah's Flood. So let's keep our eye on the ball ok?I'm actually suprised that the admin hasn't stepped in yet The Rock Hound

Having read the last couple of posts, I have to apologise to the admin and everyone else - I said that we were getting off topic talking about the forest fires and all, and I was wrong. Sorry guys.I've been wondering - what if the Bible prophets were talking about the Snowball Earth Hypothesis? Supposedly it happened 600 million years ago - and it's possible it could happen again in the future.The Rock Hound

Buzsaw do you know what the Snowball Earth Hypothesis actually is?The aftermath of a Snowball Earth event is the only instance I know of where you would get something similar to what you've been talking about.Here's a great article in the Scientific American:
http://www.sciam.com...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}Torrential rain, elevated temperatures, excessive carbon dioxide and water vapour in the atmosphere... this sound familiar to anyone?The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-04-2003]

quote:

---

Howdy dudy n wowdy dowdy!! Talk about a problematic imaginary dream up. At least my story has a supernatural mind capable of making it happen. The folks that dream up this stuff and the ones who believe it are the ones of wild faith and imagination. Imagine, it's all froze up, it thaws it's self out, cooks itself up n out pops all this intricate, complex, orderly, beautiful amazing life. Smother the story in eons of time and lualla, you got a following. Aaaaaamazing!!

---

Oh please - did you actually read the article at all? Did you notice that the scientists built up the hypothesis using EVIDENCE? They did not simply think of some daft idea, then go looking for something to back it up - like so many creationists. Wild faith is only required where there is no scientific evidence of any kind to back up a theory - so if they only evidence you have for your theory is the "prophesies" of the Bible, it cannot withstand any kind of rational debate and your credibility is almost nil.Please bear in mind that Snowball Earth is still only a hypothesis. It is certainly not set in stone, and it has been heavily debated since it was first proposed. Can you even admit that your idea is only a hypothesis too, as it rests on such feeble evidence? But no, that would be impossible - because that would leave it open to debate, and introduce the idea that the Bible could be wrong.The Rock Hound

In the interest of staying on topic I will not start discussing the Snowball Earth Hypothesis. However there are some things I must respond to.

quote:

---

You haven't been reading well and assimilating have you Rocky?
1. The prophecies of the past being accurately fulfilled implicates fulfillment in the future.
2. The forest fires and heatup trend adds to the implication of prophecy fulfillment.
3. To that I've explained in some yet unrefuted common sense terms how under the right conditions it could happen.
4. My hypothesis includes the supernatural which whether or not one believes, would fill in where natural laws are insufficient, the most significant being the heating and drying up of the planet, causing widespread significant evaporation. The prophecy clearly implicates the supernatural here.

---

So far you have not produced any "evidence" that might convince me that you are doing anything other than shoehorning events in the natural world into the pattern the Bible requires. Much of what you have already claimed has been refuted. And the natural laws are quite sufficient to explain global warming - and the planet is not drying up.

quote:

---

It's all been open to debate for a long time and holding up quite well.

---

As far as I can see, this isn't true. So explain how your hypothesis is holding up please.The Rock Hound

Sorry - I was angry when I wrote the last post, and I didn't read the rest of the thread. Looks like people have been busy though... A pat on the back to Quetsal, for pointing out the rebuttals Ok then. No more screwing around or getting off topic. If anyone is going to support or deny buzsaw's ideas then they should post links or citations - and hopefully we can end this once and for all. Sound good?The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

quote:

---

What's the big rush to end this?? Many threads go on for months. This's only been going for two or three weeks. If it slows down, so be it, but I'm not throwing in my towel unless I can be fairly and soundly refuted and that just hasn't happened though some want to make it look that way. Are you getting nervous about links I'm putting on supporting my argument? There's more out there too and I need some time to dig them up.

---

Nervous? I think not. Dont' delude yourself into thinking I feel threatened somehow by your assertations, which have not been supported by the links you provided and have already been refuted by solid physics. I point you to Coragyps' calculations, which show that your 'canopy' idea does not work - could you possibly show some that do? No - because there are none that stand up to serious scrutiny.You have been fairly and soundly refuted in your scientific assumptions. You just haven't been listening, and you continue to repeat the same tired mantras - and I am getting tired of watching all the members here constantly posting the same proof against them.If you are not willing to learn or admit you are wrong then you are wasting our time.The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

That's what I was saying... this one's gone on long enough. So, here's a quick summary for everyone, based on the original post.

quote:

---

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.

---

There's enough evidence around against the Flood, so I won't bother posting it all again. So far buzsaw has not clarified what he means by thick and high, or 'surface continent'.

quote:

---

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.

---

Coragyps refuted this in post #7, as did I in post #22. A few others joined in too, and Buzsaw did not produce any evidence to support this statement.

quote:

---

5. According to the prophets, we're headed for big time drought and global warming.

---

It has been shown that global warming does not necessarily equal drought, except on a local level (Percipient in #74). Buzsaw switched to talking about this around post #55. In post #66 he suggests that a miracle could cause the drought. He then goes on to discuss the apparent increase in forest fires as proof, which was refuted by many people, especially NosyNed.

quote:

---

6. According to the prophet John, a meteor will likely hit an ocean, wiping out a third of the ships.

---

Macavity provided a handy link in post #73 about the logistics of a meteor strike, which Buzsaw never responded to.

quote:

---

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.

---

Also refuted by Macavity's post. Buzsaw later doubled back on this in post #98, in replying to Percipient's post.

quote:

---

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".

---

No one really got excited over this - I suppose it's incidental to the main discussion. Percipient pointed out that prophesies 'back-fitted' to events that have already happened are not really prophesies at all, in reference to Buzsaw continually stating that global warming had been predicted by the Bible.

quote:

---

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.

---

John and Coragyps tackled this one - and eventually provided the numbers behind how much water the atmosphere could hold and how hot the Earth would get. This was the whole vapour canopy thing, for which Buzsaw provided no calculations or scientific explanations. Another miracle was invoked in post #113. Many others joined in here, asking questions about this idea - Buzsaw did not provide any reasonable answers.

quote:

---

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.

---

This was discarded early on, as earthquakes are not caused by this and the idea of a worldwide quake is ridiculous.

quote:

---

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.

---

This wasn't really addressed either, as Buzsaw never defined what he meant by 'super climate'.All this was posted before page 11 of this thread. The rest of the thread consists of everyone posting the same stuff over and over again, because Buzsaw apparently didn't read them the first or second time.Draw your own conclusions.The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."