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

quote:

---

Well it does press down! You are making up your mind about something you clearly know less about than my grade 8 son from his simple science classes.

---

OUCH!! Now you're stepping on my toes. Likely your son is still reading about the alleged zillionth aged coelacanth, the alleged Nebraska man and the alleged Java man also. Just because you and the pros theorize differently than I doesn't make me stupid. Imo, I have sounder reasons to theorize what is oberserved and experienced Biblically than you do sciendiculously.

quote:

---

Nope, just on your side of the isle. Guessing based on no knowledge at all. The crust has been measured. The movement of plates has been measured. The physics is well understood. What "guesses" do you not like?

​

Don't go running off this topic until you demonstrate the integrity necessary to admit you didn't have a clue and are wrong about the overall geology of the earth.

---

With so many Biblical prophecies fulfilled and all, I've still gotta go with the Noah flood story and I'm not convinced that all that water didn't do a whole lot more than you folks figure if the flood did happen. for one thing the water is liquid and being liquid, if the mountains were only hills and the whole earth was covered with water, even the water on the continents would be puting pressure on the weaker thinner crusts under the oceans. The Bible tells of the "fountains of the deep" which may factor in some here also, implying there were cavities of subterrain oceans or lakes before the flood broke them up. There's a lot more that likely happened than any of us know, including the pros, imo.

I didn't say you were stupid and wasn't trying to say so. What you have proven here is that you have no clue about the facts of geology. Pretty much none at all. That is what I meant when I said you didn't know anything about it.You might not know what you think you know about the coelacanth, Nebraska "man" or java man. That's for sure if you've been geting that information from the same place you get your geology.

quote:

---

My favorite introductory geological text, definitely written for the layman, is Earth Story by Simon Lamb and David Sington.

---

Just ordered it from half.com - thanks for the suggestion.

quote:

---

Likely your son is still reading about the alleged zillionth aged coelacanth, the alleged Nebraska man and the alleged Java man also. Just because you and the pros theorize differently than I doesn't make me stupid. Imo, I have sounder reasons to theorize what is oberserved and experienced Biblically than you do sciendiculously.

---

Be careful how you use (and abuse) terminology. Repeating "alleged" ad infinitum, using words like "zillion" to make fun of the apparent age of the earth (as suggested by numerous methods and disproven by none) calls your motives into question - are you here to debate or ridicule? "Sciendiculously?" Are you kidding me?What have you observed in the scientific sense from the Bible? Unverifiable stories is all I ever got. Unproven, unrepeatable, untestable, unfalsifiable claims. In order to defend those claims, you seem prepared to categorically discount any and all evidence seen in nature that might contradict the them. Not a good way to demonstrate an objective, informed stance on the issues. Have you done any of the introductory geology reading suggested yet? I ordered one of those books so I can become more informed and credible in this kind of debate. It would seem like a good idea for you too.*****edit*****
FYI, you can get Earth Story "like new" for $6.40 right now. Kinda hard to pass up.[This message has been edited by zephyr, 05-27-2003]

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."

Let me get this straight ... you are basing your entire
theory on something that not even the Bible makes claim to?Gen 7.19 says that the high hills were covered, and following
that Gen 7.20 that the mountains were covered.

Hi Buzsaw,I'm doing this against my better judgment. I hope I'm not wasting my time. This is the wrong question. You instead want to ask how the ocean basins formed. This has been answered for you already, but I'll answer it again by providing an example.Somewhere around a hundred million years ago (I'm going from memory, don't hold me to the date) the predecessors of the modern continents were joined into a single continent called Pangaea. The Atlantic Ocean did not exist, but it began to form when a rift occurred between what is now North America in the west and what is now Europe and Africa in the east. Ocean flowed into the rift between the continents, and magma poured out of the rift and solidified into ocean floor. Some of the magma fell to the west and pushed North America westward. Some of the magma fell to the east and pushed Europe and Africa eastward. The new seafloor to the west of the rift joined the North American plate. The new seafloor to the east joined the European and African plates.Now, the above is just one of those "just-so" stories until you understand how we were able to deduce what happened. It was after WWII when the US (and the Soviets) were making detailed maps of the sea floor as an aid to submarine warfare, and magnetic maps were part of this effort. The magnetic maps revealed something startling - the magnetization of the seafloor was striped, and the stripes were parallel to the oceanic ridges! How could this be?Further research revealed that new sea floor was constantly being formed at the oceanic ridges at the rate of a few centimeters per year. As the new sea floor cooled it acquired a magnetic field aligned with that of the earth. Stripes were formed over time as the earth's magnetic field reversed itself every few hundred million years.And we know where the continents were over time because of the direction of magnetization of volcanic rocks. The earth's magnetic field has an angle of incidence with the earth's surface that is a function of latitude. Take any layer of volcanic rock. Then measure the angle of magnetization and the radiometric age, after which you'll know the latitude of that part of the continent when the lava cooled. Put together many such measurements of many layers at many points on each continent and you can trace the dance of the continents over time. The continents are not like ocean liners plowing through oceanic crust. Where continent and sea floor collide, such as along the west coast of the United States, the sea floor subducts beneath the continent and down, down, down into the depths of the earth and the mantle where it melts and disappears. Though there are continental rocks as old as 3.8 billion years, there is no sea floor in the world older than 200 million years. That is because the fate of all sea floor is to eventually subduct beneath a continent. The only thing that can preserve a sea floor is to become part of a continent, fortunately a fairly common occurrence else we'd have no ancient sea fossils.Now, Buzsaw, I've given you the scientific story and a little bit of the evidence supporting that story. This story is not necessarily the final word. It is not even necessarily correct. However, it does successfully explain almost all the evidence we have (important for any successful theory), and certainly all the most significant and important evidence.There is no requirement that you accept this story, but if you want to be scientific then any story you propose to replace it must explain the available evidence at least as well. Most complaints here about your approach is that you're proposing alternative stories while almost completely unaware of current geological views and the evidence behind them. Until you remedy your ignorance of this information you will be unable to formulate any worthwhile proposals. Even more frustrating for the people you're debating with, you won't even be able to understand the objections to your proposals.--Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-27-2003]

My American Standard Bible uses the words, "high mountains" in verse 19 and "mountains" in verse 20, so both verses are referring to the same mountains. It's just that verse 19 described them as being "high," and the wording was to inform that the highest existing mountains were indeed covered by the flood. The problem with your critique is that neither verse says how high the mountains were. I believe the highest mountains then were no more than the height of our foothills and were considered "high" when they had nothing higher to compare them to. I can't prove that, no more than you folks can prove your sciendiculous stuff. It's my theory based on what the Bible says and my interpretation of what is observed. If the highest above sea level for the entire planet was, for example, 1500', that would be then considered "high mountains."

quote:

---

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.

---

Hi Rocky. Yes, I'm readin you, but I'm building my structure here from a different kind of foundation than you. My foundation is the Biblical record which indeed has Noah's flood. Since the prophecies and other supernatural stuff prove the Bible to be supernatural, I believe I have a more sound foundation than you. So in my book THERE WAS INDEED A WORLDWIDE FLOOD. Biblical skeptics are resisting the message which data like Ballards recent Black Sea discoveries is shouting that there was a world flood, trying to limit it to the locality, but it's just another step in justifying the Biblical record of the flood, imo. More will come.For what it's worth, this from Psalms 104:5-9 (American Standard Version)

quote:

---

Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be moved for ever. You covered it with the deep as with a vesture. The waters stood above the mountains. At your rebuke, they fled; at the voice of your thunder, they hasted away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down; unto the place which you had founded for them. You have set a bound that they may not pass over, that they turn not again to cover the earth.

---

(I've transcribed the old English thous and such into modern English.)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.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-27-2003]

Thanks very much, Percy for taking the time and effort to post your views as to my two questions. I know how much thought and time it requires to do these things and want you to know, I do sincerely appreciate your substantial response.It will take some time for me to read, reread and meditate on what you've said, so bear with me if it takes me a while to respond to what you've said. The first thing that came to my mind as I was reading it for the first time is 'WOW, these people criticize Biblicalists for believing stuff a few thousand years removed and they are wanting us to think they know all this alleged detail about things hundreds of millions to billions of years removed based on far less data than we have for our thousands to go on!!'Anyhow, thanks much and I'll mull it over some more.

quote:

---

Be careful how you use (and abuse) terminology. Repeating "alleged" ad infinitum, using words like "zillion" to make fun of the apparent age of the earth (as suggested by numerous methods and disproven by none) calls your motives into question - are you here to debate or ridicule? "Sciendiculously?" Are you kidding me?

---

Ok, Zephyr, you tell me. Was aged prehistoric coelacanth, Nebraska man and Java man, indeed alleged and proven erroneous, or indeed factual scientific stuff. Have they all been removed or replaced in all of our educational institutions yet? Lighten up a bit. I'm here to engage in serious discussion and debate, but do you folks have some kind of corner on ridicule in this town? Aren't we all allowed a bit of that from time to time? I've taken my share of it graciously.....I think. I can handle it, and I believe mine was a bit more impersonal than was yours.

quote:

---

What have you observed in the scientific sense from the Bible?

---

You mean to support the Biblical accounts? I have all the archeological stuff you folks have. Your theories interpret them to suit your ideology and same for me. I choose to focus in on things like Ballard's Black Sea discoveries, Carl Baugh's man made stuff fossilized in coal, the discovery that the alleged prehistoric coelacanth is still around, chariot wheels in the Gulf of Aqaba and such. You people like to focus in on stuff you can somehow smother in eons of time to render them mentally palatable.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-27-2003]

True, so far as it goes.It still means that the starting assumption, and therefore
foundation of your entire line of reasoning is flawed.I though only a fool built upon the sand.

Can you explain some thigns that are puzzling me.1) Why do you think Nebraska man, a mistake which was corrected after only a few years - and that long ago - is still taught as fact in schools ?
To the best of my knowledge the "Nebraska man" designation only appeared in the popular media and while it is possible that a teacher at the time could have used that material I have never heard of it appearing in any textbook, even back then.
(I also note that Baugh has made at least one similar - and probably worse mistake - identifying a fossil fish tooth as human)2) Why do you think that Ballards research into the filling of the Black Sea basin is evidence of a global flood ? Ballard himself does not think so - the only relation to the story of Noah is the idea that the story originated with the flooding of the area now under the Black Sea - a local flood.3) The chariot wheels in Aqaba are one of Ron Wyatt's "discoveries". Even Answers in Genesis consider Wyatt to be highly untrustworthy.4) The modern coelocanths are not the fossil species. The prehistoric coelocanths are NOT around. Why do you think that they are ?

Okay buzz, time to put up some references in support of your claims. You've made a number of assertions in this and other threads, none of which you've bothered to support other than vaguely. Let's take a look at some of the recent ones: 1. aged prehistoric coelacanth: On the assumption that you're quoting the old oft-repeated creationist saw about "prehistoric coelocanths" being somehow a refutation of evolution, you might wish to actually consider researching an answer outside of the creationist websites. In the first place, the "coelocanth" that have been captured actually represent two living species of an order, Coelocanthini, that has been around for on the order of 340 my. The two species Latimeria chalumnae and L. manadoensis are the last surviving representatives. They aren't "living fossils", and they are only "coelocanths" because they belong to that order. Both are substantially different from their nearest fossil relative, Macropoma spp. to the point they aren't even considered the same genus. So where are the ancestral fossils of Latimeria? Buried in continental shelf sediments in out-of-the-way corners of the deep ocean. Which is why no one has found them. It WAS thought that the order was extinct, based on the last known fossils. Nice to know that there are still undiscovered species running around the planet, but the Latimeria are not "living fossils".2. Nebraska man: In the first place, Nebraska man was NEVER included in ANY textbook. When the tooth was discovered, it was touted in the media as a sensation "proving" that pre-humans had existed in North America. It was disputed in scientific circles almost immediately, and was thoroughly dropped within five years or so of the discovery. (I can dig up the exact timeline if you're interested). An example of wishful thinking coupled with politics and media sensationalism - that was discredited by scientists. This isn't any kind of a black eye for evolutionary theory any more than the Piltdown or archeoraptor hoaxes were. The only people clinging to this are creationists trying to discredit evolution. Pitiful, really.3. Java man: The only reason creationists can even think to use this early Homo erectus find as part of some vain attempt to again discredit evolution is the fact that the original bones were lost. However, plaster casts of the originals still exist. In any event, there have been innumerable erectus fossils discovered since, so even discounting completely Java man doesn't change the evolutionary sequence to modern humans. Again, a fairly desperate attempt to call into question evolution based on completely spurious arguments. Your creationist sources are badly misleading you. And now we drag in proven frauds that even most creationist organisations have discarded.1. Ballard's Black Sea discoveries unfortunately provide absolutely no support fo any creation account. The fact that the Mediterranean's rise at the end of the last ice age caused the breach of the Bosporus 7600 years ago. What's fascinating about the sort of "slow-motion" catastrophe is that the unique nature of the event created conditions for completely anoxic bottom layer - possibly preserving ancient lake-shore cultures. Almost 10 years ago Ballard found an ancient shoreline lying in 140 m of water. Since then submersibles and underwater archeologists have discovered innumerable artifacts from the Mesolithic to Bronze Age from the anoxic layers. If you want to consider the Black Sea flood to have been the source of all subsequent flood myths - including the Christian one - then more power to you. It most certainly doesn't mean that Noah, the Ark, and God were involved. An example of creationists seizing on any data, no matter how remotely relevant or how many alternative interpretations (especially scientific ones) are available to explain the evidence.2. Baugh's "coal skull" was found to be made from clay, his fossilized hammer wasn't fossilized, his "human and dino together" prints have been shown to be faked, etc. Not even the YEC organizations who are often guilty of faking or misinterpreting evidence will support Baugh. The man and all his "discoveries" have been so thoroughly refuted that even AiG won't use them any more.3. Ron Wyatt's chariot wheels in Aqaba were revealed to have been planted. His own son is the one who finally admitted that daddy had faked the evidence. John Baumgardner, a leading "creation scientist" often quoted by YECs, proved Wyatt's "ark" on Ararat was faked.I don't have to "smother" anything. Creationists shoot themselves and each other in the foot on a regular basis. Any wonder why it's difficult to accept that these people aren't dishonest charlatans? If this is where you get your "evidence", it's no longer a question of intepretation. It's a question of dishonest "lying for Jesus" vs science. I'll take the science every time.

I think you're misunderstanding the criticism. No one is saying, "The events of the Bible supposedly took place thousands of years ago, and that is so long ago that there is no possible way we could know whether they really happened or not." What they are actually saying is, "How can you conclude that those events of the Bible for which there is no known evidence, some of which violate known physical laws and are therefore miraculous, really happened?" It is the impossibility of the events combined with the lack of evidence, and in many cases the existence of falsifying evidence, that raises this criticism.We can dig up Jericho and radiocarbon date the layers and know that Jericho burned at one time a few thousand years ago, but we can't know if trumpets really blew and the walls came tumbling down, because for that we have no evidence.We know from historical evidence that Sennacherib lay seige to Jerusalem and that he eventually gave up the seige and returned home, but we can't know if angels of the Lord really swept over his army and killed them all because there is no evidence for this, and Sennacherib's own account that he was paid a ransome to abandon the seige is far more believable. It's also easier to believe neither Sennacherib's nor the Biblical account, since the longer an army is away from home the more dissatisfied they become and the harder it is to keep the army in place. The bottom line is that we don't really know why Sennacherib abandoned the seige because we have no solid evidence.Even though much of the sea floor is millions of years old, we have little problem dating it. The evidence is just sitting there waiting to be gathered. Anyone with sufficient means and ability can obtain a core from the sea floor and have it dated by any of a number of methods, and this has been done innumerable times for sea floor all the world. The dates are consistent with magnetic reversals, sea floor spreading rates and sedimentation rates, something that would be impossible if we were wrong about any of these things.So people aren't doubting the Biblical accounts because they occurred thousands of years ago. Evidence is not judged on some sliding scale based on age where you increasingly discount the evidence the older it becomes. Any authentic evidence that has survived to the present is valid, no matter how old it is. The problem with your arguments is not the age of your evidence, but the fact that you haven't got any.--Percy