Jump to content


Photo

Now I Understand Where The Water Came From


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 10 November 2017 - 01:58 PM

For many years I firmly believed in an old earth while still holding Genesis to be a true account.  But one thing that really bothered me was the question, where did the water come from?   Gen 7:11 says, "... all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."  What could "the springs of the great deep" possibly mean?

 

Dr. Walt Brown came up with his Hydroplate Theory claiming, "About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers, 60 miles below the entire earth’s surface."  But that didn't make sense to me, and various evolutionists lampooned it.

 

But now I saw an article about ringwoodite, a blue crystalline mineral in the earth's mantle which traps water (or actually hydroxide ions).  "They believe there might be three times as much water deep underground as exists in all the world’s surface oceans.

 

The ringwoodite is about 400 miles down, much deeper than Brown's chambers, but shallow enough to answer the question of where all that water came from.

 

This is exciting.  I've become kind of agnostic on how long the earth existed before the flood, but I think this is plausible enough to me to solve the problem of the "springs of the great deep".



#2 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 10 November 2017 - 02:06 PM

Ken if that excited you I think watching a utube video called, "The Waters cleaved" might excite you. Grady McMurtry explains that super-hot water knifed up from below the earth, much in line with what you are saying. What is truly amazing to me and can't be a coincidence, is that Grady shows a map of the whole globe without any water. Have you actually seen what that looks like? He goes on to explain many of the peculiar features on the ocean floor, not least of which is the earth-sized crack that can be traced right around the earth and starts at Caesera Phillipi. This crack, the mid-oceanic ridge, directly fits between the continental shelves showing in my/his opinion that the crack clearly split the continents, if I remember his theory correctly. 

 

Furthermore there are actual stretch-marks each side of the crack. Clearly this crack going around the whole world is "the springs of the great deep" which truly is "deep", these are the fountains of the deep that broken up. 

 

I mean it's got to be the biggest coincidence ever, that Genesis just happens to mention the fountains of the deep breaking up. "on that day all the fountains of the deep were broken up."

 

Now what does that mean? It seems obvious - water doesn't, "break" but the earth's crust did, and there is a scar going around the whole earth to show it;



#3 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 10 November 2017 - 02:26 PM

This crack, the mid-oceanic ridge, directly fits between the continental shelves showing in my/his opinion that the crack clearly split the continents, ...

Furthermore there are actual stretch-marks each side of the crack. Clearly this crack going around the whole world is "the springs of the great deep" ...

 

Dr. Brown also identified the mid-oceanic ridge as the places where the water came up.  I have no problem with that.  I agree.  And it all fits together with the ringwoodite holding the water until the crack started, which released it.


  • mike the wiz likes this

#4 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 10 November 2017 - 04:13 PM

Dr. Brown also identified the mid-oceanic ridge as the places where the water came up.  I have no problem with that.  I agree.  And it all fits together with the ringwoodite holding the water until the crack started, which released it.


That's all very well but would it really be the case that the water would suddenly be violently released from the ringwoodite if a crack opened up on the ocean floor ? And once the flood peaked, what would cause all the water to go back into the mantle to return to the locked up state in just a matter of months ?



#5 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 10 November 2017 - 05:24 PM

... but would it really be the case that the water would suddenly be violently released from the ringwoodite if a crack opened up on the ocean floor ?

If you stand on a tube of toothpaste, the paste will be content to stay in the tube until the seam at the end of the tube splits. Then it'll come out in an awful hurry. I suspect this water would too.
 

And once the flood peaked, what would cause all the water to go back into the mantle to return to the locked up state in just a matter of months ?

We solved the major problem, now you're bringing up the lesser. OK. Fair question. I don't know. But after that rapid and cataclysmic release of water from down so deep, maybe the crust took a little while to settle. Also, some claim the mountains weren't as high before the flood, so less water would be needed than would be needed today.

#6 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 11 November 2017 - 02:24 AM

Dr. Walt Brown came up with his Hydroplate Theory claiming, "About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers, 60 miles below the entire earth’s surface."  But that didn't make sense to me, and various evolutionists lampooned it.

Dr. Brown's Hydroplate model is DOA.... unless you ignore the consequences of releasing enough energy that, according to Brown, is enough to melt the surface of the planet.

 

When I first became aware of Hydroplates, Brown was claiming the energy release of 5 billion hydrogen bombs.  If nothing else, Hydroplates is a theory that is undergoing constant um ....  evolution.  The energy release is now up to 1800 trillion (1,800,000,000,000,000) hydrogen bombs.  Spread evenly over the planet, this works out to more than 40 hydrogen bombs in the space of a fairly typical (10x14 ft or 3x4 meter) bedroom.  This energy release is supposed to take place over a period of a "few weeks."  I think we could agree that would probably be something like 40 days or so. 

 

Think of what would happen if a hydrogen bomb went off in your bedroom every day for 40 days.  IIRC, when I did calculations on this, it worked out to about 66,000 hand grenades a second for 40 days and nights. In the space of a bedroom.  Over the entire planet from pole to pole.

 

It isn't only evolutionists who "lampoon" Hydroplates.  YEC astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner says (on page 199):

Let us assume for the sake of argument that only one millionth of the kinetic energy of the jets would be thermalized into the atmosphere. This figure is probably far too conservative, and the percentage of thermalized energy transfer is likely far higher..... we find an atmospheric temperature increase of 34 C. This is in addition to other heating mechanisms, such as from volcanic activity and the latent heat of vaporization from rainfall. This is an unrealistically high temperature increase, and it is doubtful that the energy transfer was this minimal.

 

Putting it another way.... if the atmosphere absorbs only 3 millionths (0.0003%) of the energy it would increase the temperature of the atmosphere by 102C.  Water boils at 100C.  Noah's goose would be cooked.

 

At creation.com, Michael Oard does an extensive evaluation of Brown's claims and concludes:

.... as for a Flood mechanism and an explanation of diverse phenomena, Brown’s model falls far short.



#7 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 13 November 2017 - 10:16 PM

Dr. Brown's Hydroplate model is DOA.... unless you ignore the consequences of releasing enough energy that, according to Brown, is enough to melt the surface of the planet.


The ringwoodite may solve some of the energy problem. I'm not sure how to figure it out, but the release of the hydroxide ions from the crystal is probably endothermic, that is, the ions are probably being stored in a low energy state, so freeing them would take energy. Also, the conversion of four OH- ions to two H2O and one O2 might be endothermic.

If this is the case, then some of the energy would get used up releasing the water.

Also, the greatest turmoil and release of energy would be over the mid-oceanic ridge. We don't know where the ark was built. It could have been anywhere on earth. Even at the south pole. But wherever it was, it probably didn't get near the mid-oceanic crack while the springs of the deep were bursting forth. So even if the water boiled there, it must have been safe elsewhere.

Also, BTW, there has been at least one meteorite found with amino acids on it. Evolutionists take this as proof that life must have originated spontaneously multiple places in our galactic neighborhood. But it makes much more sense that the fountains burst forth so powerfully that they blasted some life-bearing rocks into space.

Similarly, some of the damage done to ancient temples in Peru look like they were bombarded with heavy boulders. This would explain that too.

#8 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 15 November 2017 - 02:18 AM

 

Dr. Brown's Hydroplate model is DOA.... unless you ignore the consequences of releasing enough energy that, according to Brown, is enough to melt the surface of the planet.


The ringwoodite may solve some of the energy problem. I'm not sure how to figure it out, but the release of the hydroxide ions from the crystal is probably endothermic, that is, the ions are probably being stored in a low energy state, so freeing them would take energy. Also, the conversion of four OH- ions to two H2O and one O2 might be endothermic.

It looks like all you're doing is speculating.  Do you have a reference that the release of hydroxide ions would be endothermic?  It's a reasonable question since the vast majority of chemical reactions are exothermic.  Further, the formation of water is highly exothermic.

 

I'm not so sure it would matter anyway.  Temperatures at the depths you're talking about run in the order of 2000C (3600F). On his "Rocket Science" page, Brown uses a temperature of 1350C (about 2500F).  Any water would quickly cook out of the rock. 

 

 

If this is the case, then some of the energy would get used up releasing the water.

As Brown claims, you would be dealing with water as a supercritical fluid.  This will become "ordinary" steam as it cools down. 

 

Brown's entire proposal is based on what amounts to a huge steam explosion.  We have a pretty good understanding of steam's thermal behavior.

 

 

Also, the greatest turmoil and release of energy would be over the mid-oceanic ridge. We don't know where the ark was built. It could have been anywhere on earth. Even at the south pole. But wherever it was, it probably didn't get near the mid-oceanic crack while the springs of the deep were bursting forth. So even if the water boiled there, it must have been safe elsewhere.

It wouldn't matter where the ark was built.  I'm talking about the heating of the atmosphere.  Volcanic ash and radioactivity circle the globe in less than two weeks.

 

Faulkner calculates the conditions Brown describes would result in an inrushing wind with speeds near the speed of sound.  We're talking about a period described by Brown as "several weeks."  No one has complained when I've proposed we use 40 days as the relevant time frame.

 

Brown claims a 40,000 mile crack opened up.  Faulkner calculates winds near 700 mph.  These winds would be incoming on both sides of a 40,000 mile crack.  Total length 80,000 miles.  Atmospheric mixing will take place in hours, not weeks.

 

There will be no safety from the heat.

 

I know of 4 or 5 published reviews of Brown's Hydroplate model by qualified physicists including a YEC (Faulkner) and one who is Christian (CM Sharp).   Every single one comes to the same conclusion....

 

Hydroplates doesn't fly.

 

 



Also, BTW, there has been at least one meteorite found with amino acids on it. Evolutionists take this as proof that life must have originated spontaneously multiple places in our galactic neighborhood. But it makes much more sense that the fountains burst forth so powerfully that they blasted some life-bearing rocks into space.

 At least one amino acid has been discovered in interstellar space .... much too far to have originated from Earth.

 

Brown's model would sterilize the planet in a half dozen different ways.  It makes no sense at all


  • StormanNorman likes this

#9 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 15 November 2017 - 04:00 AM

 

 

Piasan: It wouldn't matter where the ark was built.  I'm talking about the heating of the atmosphere.  Volcanic ash and radioactivity circle the globe in less than two weeks.

 

So you are arguing that this event was impossible for God, and if it was a literal world flood it was beyond God because the ark would have been destroyed? By the way what was the temperature of the ark when God closed Noah in, do you have any data for how temperature is affected if an omnipotent being touched wood? Oh I forget, He isn't omnipotent because He can't create a flood that wouldn't destroy the ark.

 

 

 

Piasan: Brown's entire proposal is based on what amounts to a huge steam explosion

 

Yes but Brown's argument is only one argument. There will always be speculation about how scientific problems were solved, but it seems to me that you are basically saying that there is no possible way you know of where heat could be dispersed in situation X, therefore it can't be.

 

That's an argument-from-ignorance. The second problem with that argument is that it's predicated on a false notion. If we are to assume that the God of the bible is true to His claims and for example He has the intelligence to create the aggregate eyes which obeys physical laws such as fermat's principle, Abbes sines law and the law of bifringement crystals, to then assume the same God Who created the incredible, couldn't get around a small heat problem when He invented heat and invented the laws of thermodynamics, seems if I may be so bold, a rather bizarre assumption. If God created all of physics and all lifeforms and all of the scientific laws, then who would you want to be in charge of orchestrating a global flood? Or do you forget that Genesis does not claim this was a natural event that simply occurred on it's own but that God specifically brought the flood as judgement? You can't bring science into theology and then say, "be gone, theology, be gone supernatural and miracles." 

 

So bizarre in fact, it is a wonder if the individual that accepts such an assumption, even believes God is capable of doing anything at all, without Darwin's permission.

 

Do you at least agree that the following two assumptions are reasonable;

 

1. There are many possible ways to disperse of heat, some which may require incredible knowledge and ingenuity and problem solving which humans may not be smart enough to think up, especially if no science has been conducted in repeating a global flood.

2. If God is omniscient, He will know of every possible way to disperse heat or make it so that there is no heat to begin with?



#10 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 768 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 15 November 2017 - 09:22 AM

2. If God is omniscient, He will know of every possible way to disperse heat or make it so that there is no heat to begin with?

Once you're at this point, any possible problem or contradictory piece of evidence can be explained away because there are no rules anymore. Why even bother with a model?
  • piasan and StormanNorman like this

#11 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 15 November 2017 - 02:21 PM

 

 

Popoi: Once you're at this point, any possible problem or contradictory piece of evidence can be explained away because there are no rules anymore. Why even bother with a model? 

 

But really it's only evolutionists that insist that the matter be completely scientific. I myself never predicated miracles on any, "model" of science as such. The creation scientists would argue that it is science, I myself prefer to call it apologetics. With apologetics, we have a mixture of scripture and therefore the miraculous, but because these things happened in our natural world, the effects might still be measurable in some way.

 

A flood can never be strong science but it doesn't matter because all historical science is weak in that we can't measure actual repeatable effects of those one time events.

 

So you might think a flood can't be falsified. Not really though, all historical models have contradictory evidence and if we assume one model is true then such evidence can't falsify the true one. With that in mind, the correct way to falsify a flood can only be the correct employment of the modus tollens where there is an absolutely watertight conditional implication.

 

All such implications are only sound if the consequent without fail, would follow the antecedent.

 

So then we can hypothesise several and falsifying them would falsify a flood;

 

"If a flood occurred, because the bible says all creatures perished, the fossil record would contain all phyla, all types of animals and organisms, generally speaking." (Disclaimer; that obviously wouldn't include specific species as that would be an absurd request but suffice to say if a flood done what the bible says it did, and killed all life on earth, we would expect to find evidence that all types of life died."

 

So then a perfect falsification of a flood, and a genuine one according to the falsification-rule, would have been if we had only found in the fossils, angiosperms, or had we only found in the fossils, marine forms. We have found every representative for each phyla.

 

Another one would be this;

 

"If a flood occurred, since the bible says all life on earth was killed by it while alive, then it follows we would expect to find in the fossils, fossils preserved in exquisite condition AND we would certainly expect them to be found in the suffocation position, eating, fighting, giving birth, digesting, we wouldn't expect them to be greatly decayed because of being preserved dead and we wouldn't expect to generally find any transitional species."

 

So had we found no fossils like that, and they were generally in a semi-rotten state by majority that would be a falsification. The flood wipe out things while living, there is great evidence things were living when they were preserved. I can think of two very convincing cases recently eggs found have confirmed the BEDS model; (Briefly Exposed Diluvial Sediments) This shown hurriedly fashioned egg-nests. There are also many other types of evidence of tracks which indicate attempted escapes by various organisms, such as the cocino sandstone tracks, now proven to have happened in water

 

https://creation.com...rts-flood-model

 

 

 

The fact that there are four levels of eggs with the remains of titanosaurs on two levels (figure 1) adds support to the oscillatory Flood model. The same type of dinosaur laid the eggs on all four BEDS. In the uniformitarian model, the sequence should be an accumulation of sediment over hundreds of thousands of years. How probable is it for the same type of dinosaur to frequent the same spot hundreds of thousands of years later?

 

 

CONCLUSION; You can't falsify a flood unless you have a really strong prediction where there is a conspicuous absence of unavoidably expected evidence. However you can provide evidence against a flood. With historical hypotheses about the past, there can be no certainty. In my opinion scientificizing the past is really a waste of time, we will never have evidence such as a silver-bullet and it's also difficult to falsify because there will always be the possibility that there is some unknown explanation. Even you yourself go with the "unexplained" position on some points for your own model, such as the soft tissue which science has shown couldn't last all that long. I am fair, I won't say it is a silver-bullet, I will only say it's strong evidence against long ages because I am aware of how tentative historical science is.



#12 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 15 November 2017 - 05:13 PM

"If a flood occurred, since the bible says all life on earth was killed by it while alive, then it follows we would expect to find in the fossils, fossils preserved in exquisite condition AND we would certainly expect them to be found in the suffocation position, eating, fighting, giving birth, digesting, we wouldn't expect them to be greatly decayed because of being preserved dead and we wouldn't expect to generally find any transitional species."

So had we found no fossils like that, and they were generally in a semi-rotten state by majority that would be a falsification. The flood wipe out things while living, there is great evidence things were living when they were preserved.


What kind of percentage of fossils are found preserved in “exquisite condition” or are preserved in the act of those things you list ? You make out its commonplace. In actual fact the vast majority of fossils are incomplete, particularly skeletal remains. I’ve mentioned this before to you, that a complete dinosaur skeleton of any type has never been found.

Remains are indeed in a “semi rotten state by majority” so ironically you have just provided the rationale that your flood didn’t happen.
 

I can think of two very convincing cases recently eggs found have confirmed the BEDS model; (Briefly Exposed Diluvial Sediments) This shown hurriedly fashioned egg-nests. There are also many other types of evidence of tracks which indicate attempted escapes by various organisms, such as the cocino sandstone tracks, now proven to have happened in water


I read about that the other day because the link came up on the EFF homepage. I am a bit bemused that they think that the flood dumped sediment, then the titanosaurs trudged across it to lay eggs, then the next wave of sediment came in followed by the next band of egg layers, then repeated again and again so that there are several layers in vertical succession in the resultant rock with fossilized eggs. What planet are they on to think that is a plausible scenario ? Are they really saying that as this catastrophe was unfolding the dinos were struggling across freshly laid deep sediment to lay eggs, then somehow after each flood surge there were still live and healthy dinos coming back and forth. Do you really call that idea “very convincing” ? :blink: 

As for the Coccinino sandstone tracks being “proven” to have happened in water I’m afraid that is at best a delusion and at worst a downright lie. Please explain how that is in any way proven ? I’m afraid experiments where they chucked salamanders in a tank with some sand and gently flowing water does not equate to proof that after your flood had already dumped a mile of sediment there were somehow live lizards still about conveniently making nice little tracks on underwater sand dunes that then somehow got preserved intact in that situation. When you paddle in the sea on a sandy beach how long do your footprints remain defined and intact underwater ?



#13 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 16 November 2017 - 02:03 AM

 

Piasan: It wouldn't matter where the ark was built.  I'm talking about the heating of the atmosphere.  Volcanic ash and radioactivity circle the globe in less than two weeks.

So you are arguing that this event was impossible for God, and if it was a literal world flood it was beyond God because the ark would have been destroyed? By the way what was the temperature of the ark when God closed Noah in, do you have any data for how temperature is affected if an omnipotent being touched wood? Oh I forget, He isn't omnipotent because He can't create a flood that wouldn't destroy the ark.

Strawman.

 

We've been down this path before, mike.  God is fully capable of making the water for the flood appear and disappear by any process He chooses.  All He needs to do is suspend the natural laws and exercise His will.  He could place the Ark under His protection so it won't be ripped apart by hull flexure.

 

God's supernatural ability is not the issue.

 

 

Piasan: Brown's entire proposal is based on what amounts to a huge steam explosion

Yes but Brown's argument is only one argument. There will always be speculation about how scientific problems were solved, but it seems to me that you are basically saying that there is no possible way you know of where heat could be dispersed in situation X, therefore it can't be.

Brown's claim is the subject of the OP and was the focus of my comments.  It is noteworthy, however, that all the other creation science models for a flood have the exact same (heat) problem.

 

In physics, there are three ways to disperse heat.  Conduction, convection, and radiation.  If you have another way, I'm listening.

 

That's an argument-from-ignorance.

My claim is based on the laws of thermodynamics and physics.  You are essentially arguing that thermodynamics, physics, and all of our modern technology is nothing more than arguments from ignorance.  Putting it another way.... your computer is based on a logical fallacy.

 

 

The second problem with that argument is that it's predicated on a false notion. If we are to assume that the God of the bible is true to His claims and for example He has the intelligence to create the aggregate eyes which obeys physical laws such as fermat's principle, Abbes sines law and the law of bifringement crystals, to then assume the same God Who created the incredible, couldn't get around a small heat problem when He invented heat and invented the laws of thermodynamics, seems if I may be so bold, a rather bizarre assumption. If God created all of physics and all lifeforms and all of the scientific laws, then who would you want to be in charge of orchestrating a global flood? Or do you forget that Genesis does not claim this was a natural event that simply occurred on it's own but that God specifically brought the flood as judgement? You can't bring science into theology and then say, "be gone, theology, be gone supernatural and miracles." 

Science is a false notion.  Got it.

 

You do understand the creation scientists who propose flood models are claiming to provide scientific explanations for these events.  They are the ones bringing science into theology.  All of them have signed declarations that any evidence in conflict with a literal Bible is invalid by definition.

 

If you want to invoke a miracle by God, it's game over.  The scientific discussion has ended.  As Popoi pointed out, there is no need for a creation science model.

 

So bizarre in fact, it is a wonder if the individual that accepts such an assumption, even believes God is capable of doing anything at all, without Darwin's permission.

Red herring.

 

This is Newtonian physics.  Not Darwinian evolution.

 

Do you at least agree that the following two assumptions are reasonable;

 

1. There are many possible ways to disperse of heat, some which may require incredible knowledge and ingenuity and problem solving which humans may not be smart enough to think up, especially if no science has been conducted in repeating a global flood.

2. If God is omniscient, He will know of every possible way to disperse heat or make it so that there is no heat to begin with?

1.  No.  As stated before, there are exactly three ways to disperse heat.  A global flood has no bearing on how they work.

2.  See 1.  With the note that God is omnipotent so He is fully capable of suspending the laws of science and simply making the heat vanish.



#14 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 16 November 2017 - 12:30 PM

It looks like all you're doing is speculating. Do you have a reference that the release of hydroxide ions would be endothermic? It's a reasonable question since the vast majority of chemical reactions are exothermic. Further, the formation of water is highly exothermic.

I'm not so sure it would matter anyway. Temperatures at the depths you're talking about run in the order of 2000C (3600F). On his "Rocket Science" page, Brown uses a temperature of 1350C (about 2500F). Any water would quickly cook out of the rock.


If we start with four OH- ions, we have to break two O-H bonds and form two new O-H bonds to get two water molecules, which I believe is energy neutral. But when we combine the remaining oxygen atoms into O2, we release some energy.

But that's not all there was. The ringwoodite is "able to contain hydroxide ions", but what does that mean? Things tend to go to the lowest energy state, so I assume the crystal holding hydroxide is in a lower energy state than having the two separate, so separating them should take energy. Yes, I'm speculating that it's endothermic and maybe that the whole process is endothermic. When I get to it, I'll track down more information, but I posted in hopes that I might interest someone with more chemistry knowledge than me.
 

God is fully capable of making the water for the flood appear and disappear by any process He chooses.  All He needs to do is suspend the natural laws and exercise His will.  He could place the Ark under His protection so it won't be ripped apart by hull flexure.
 
God's supernatural ability is not the issue.


I agree with you. God could use His supernatural power to suspend His laws of physics and chemistry, but that explanation tastes bad. Why did God create SO MANY things in nature that insightful scientists and investigators can use to figure things our? Why has He given us all unique fingerprints? A very skillful cabinetmaker isn't annoyed when you put his dado joints under a microscope. He's thrilled when someone notices his fine work. I think God is pleased when we put His Word and His creation under the microscope to figure out how He flooded the earth. That's why I found this ringwoodite discovery so exciting.

There are two sources of knowledge: observed and revealed. If our understanding of the physical world and our understanding of God's Word seem to be at odds, that is proof that we don't understand one or the other.
 

In physics, there are three ways to disperse heat. Conduction, convection, and radiation. If you have another way, I'm listening.


In physics, we can also transfer heat to kinetic and potential energy, such as blasting rocks and atmosphere into space.
In chemistry, we can also use up heat in an endothermic chemical reaction instead of dispersing it.
In multiple disciplines, we can reduce temperature according to Boyle's law by reducing air pressure, which would happen when some of the atmosphere was blasted into space.

#15 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 16 November 2017 - 03:50 PM


 

 

Wibble: What kind of percentage of fossils are found preserved in “exquisite condition” or are preserved in the act of those things you list ? You make out its commonplace. In actual fact the vast majority of fossils are incomplete, particularly skeletal remains. I’ve mentioned this before to you, that a complete dinosaur skeleton of any type has never been found.

 

Pterosaurs

 

Complete fossil spiders, dozens and dozens

 

Fossil beetles

 

Many types of fossil leaves 

 

Complete Bats

 

Complete Dragon flies

 

Complete frogs

 

Exquisite amber fossils (none show any evolution, either extinct or known.)

 

Fossil reptiles

 

Dozens of complete or near complete dinosaur fossils (please note how many seem to have their necks thrown back in the suffocation position, just drowned.)

 

(So my post is an example of when someone doesn't just provide bare assertions and nothing more and why people shouldn't believe something just because someone asserts it.)

 

 

 

Wibble:  In actual fact the vast majority of fossils are incomplete, particularly skeletal remains

 

 

mike the wiz: we would expect to find in the fossils, fossils preserved in exquisite condition AND we would certainly expect them to be found in the suffocation position, eating, fighting, giving birth, digesting, we wouldn't expect them to be greatly decayed(already dead and rotted) (notice there is no mention of completeness/incompleteness, which isn't the same thing as, "decay".)



#16 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 16 November 2017 - 04:48 PM

:get_a_clue:

 

What are you trying to prove with those links ? I have told you before that if you google image fossils obviously you are going to get the very best specimens showing first. Its selection bias. It is not support for your assertion that fossils should generally be found in "exquisite" condition rather than in a "semi rotten state". Plus your examples of completely intact organisms should be in all types of sedimentary deposits not in specific ones renowned for their fidelity of preservation such as the lagerstatten limestone which many of those in your links are from.

 

Regarding dinosaurs, you have asserted "dozens of complete or nearly complete" specimens, which of those in your link are complete ? If you click on the first image, it mentions it is the most complete dino ever found at 98% complete (this was in 2011). With your argument, with rapid burial whilst alive, pretty much all skeletons should be complete, rather than very rare specimens that are almost complete like that specimen.

 

As for the amber fossils, of course they have a high chance of being complete as the insect or spider would be engulfed by the tree sap and thus shielded from scavenging etc.

 

And don't pretend in your final comment that you weren't actually referring to completeness, this is exactly what you were saying because animals would be equally decayed in regard to non skeletal parts of the bodies whether they were buried by your flood or by normal processes.



#17 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 937 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 16 November 2017 - 09:55 PM

Dr. Brown's Hydroplate model is DOA.... unless you ignore the consequences of releasing enough energy that, according to Brown, is enough to melt the surface of the planet.


The ringwoodite may solve some of the energy problem. I'm not sure how to figure it out, but the release of the hydroxide ions from the crystal is probably endothermic, that is, the ions are probably being stored in a low energy state, so freeing them would take energy. Also, the conversion of four OH- ions to two H2O and one O2 might be endothermic.
It looks like all you're doing is speculating.  Do you have a reference that the release of hydroxide ions would be endothermic?  It's a reasonable question since the vast majority of chemical reactions are exothermic.  Further, the formation of water is highly exothermic.
 
I'm not so sure it would matter anyway.  Temperatures at the depths you're talking about run in the order of 2000C (3600F). On his "Rocket Science" page, Brown uses a temperature of 1350C (about 2500F).  Any water would quickly cook out of the rock. 
 
 

If this is the case, then some of the energy would get used up releasing the water.

As Brown claims, you would be dealing with water as a supercritical fluid.  This will become "ordinary" steam as it cools down. 
 
Brown's entire proposal is based on what amounts to a huge steam explosion.  We have a pretty good understanding of steam's thermal behavior.
 
 

Also, the greatest turmoil and release of energy would be over the mid-oceanic ridge. We don't know where the ark was built. It could have been anywhere on earth. Even at the south pole. But wherever it was, it probably didn't get near the mid-oceanic crack while the springs of the deep were bursting forth. So even if the water boiled there, it must have been safe elsewhere.

It wouldn't matter where the ark was built.  I'm talking about the heating of the atmosphere.  Volcanic ash and radioactivity circle the globe in less than two weeks.
 
Faulkner calculates the conditions Brown describes would result in an inrushing wind with speeds near the speed of sound.  We're talking about a period described by Brown as "several weeks."  No one has complained when I've proposed we use 40 days as the relevant time frame.
 
Brown claims a 40,000 mile crack opened up.  Faulkner calculates winds near 700 mph.  These winds would be incoming on both sides of a 40,000 mile crack.  Total length 80,000 miles.  Atmospheric mixing will take place in hours, not weeks.
 
There will be no safety from the heat.
 
I know of 4 or 5 published reviews of Brown's Hydroplate model by qualified physicists including a YEC (Faulkner) and one who is Christian (CM Sharp).   Every single one comes to the same conclusion....
 
Hydroplates doesn't fly.
 
 

Also, BTW, there has been at least one meteorite found with amino acids on it. Evolutionists take this as proof that life must have originated spontaneously multiple places in our galactic neighborhood. But it makes much more sense that the fountains burst forth so powerfully that they blasted some life-bearing rocks into space.

 At least one amino acid has been discovered in interstellar space .... much too far to have originated from Earth.
 
Brown's model would sterilize the planet in a half dozen different ways.  It makes no sense at all


"It looks like all you're doing is speculating"

Oh the Irony..... A disciple of Evolution complaining about people Speculating... No words to describe it....

At least they aren't pretending to claim that their speculation = Scientific Fact like Evolutionists DO.....

"It (evolution) is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks of straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story to modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe it."

(Professor Phillip Johnson)

#18 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 16 November 2017 - 11:25 PM

At least one amino acid has been discovered in interstellar space .... much too far to have originated from Earth.


I missed this. Interstellar space. Space between stars, meaning outside of our solar system. Someone found something outside of our solar system? How could anything have been found outside of our solar system?

#19 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 November 2017 - 01:34 AM

 

At least one amino acid has been discovered in interstellar space .... much too far to have originated from Earth.

I missed this. Interstellar space. Space between stars, meaning outside of our solar system. Someone found something outside of our solar system? How could anything have been found outside of our solar system?

It's done by spectral analysis.  The same way we know Europa is covered with water ice; Triton has a methane atmosphere; Neptune has nitrogen geysers; and the radioactive decay rate of Cobalt-56 in a supernova 167,000 light years from Earth is consistent with observed values.

 

Here's one article discussing the discovery of glycine in interstellar space:

They measured the spectral lines of the clouds - Sagittarius-B2, Orion-KL and W51 - over a four-year period using the 12-metre telescope at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) in Arizona.

The frequencies of certain transitions in glycine, which are known from experiments in the lab, provide a characteristic signature for the molecule. Knowing this spectral "fingerprint", the researchers were able to identify 27 glycine lines at frequencies between 90 and 265 GHz in the clouds. This confirms the results of earlier searches for interstellar glycine in which tantalizing evidence was provided by a handful of spectral lines.

 

Notice, these findings confirmed the results of previous searches.

 

Faulkner mentions kerogen in the interstellar medium on page 207):

Brown assumes that organic compounds, especially ones frequently associated with living things, must be biogenic.  However, kerogen has been detected in the interstellar medium and in circumstellar clouds. These clouds are much too far away to have been contaminated by material from the earth, so there must be an abiogenic source for kerogen.



#20 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 November 2017 - 01:55 AM

 

It looks like all you're doing is speculating.  Do you have a reference that the release of hydroxide ions would be endothermic?  It's a reasonable question since the vast majority of chemical reactions are exothermic.  Further, the formation of water is highly exothermic.
 
I'm not so sure it would matter anyway.  Temperatures at the depths you're talking about run in the order of 2000C (3600F). On his "Rocket Science" page, Brown uses a temperature of 1350C (about 2500F).  Any water would quickly cook out of the rock. 
 
.......
 
Brown's model would sterilize the planet in a half dozen different ways.  It makes no sense at all
Oh the Irony..... A disciple of Evolution complaining about people Speculating... No words to describe it....

At least they aren't pretending to claim that their speculation = Scientific Fact like Evolutionists DO.....

Does this have anything at all to do with the physics demonstrating the Hydroplate model is not survivable?

 

As I pointed out to mike, this particular issue is about Newton, not Darwin.

 

 


"It (evolution) is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks of straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story to modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe it."

(Professor Phillip Johnson)

Nothing there about the Flood; a source of water for the flood; or Hydroplates either.  What relevance does this have to the topic as outlined in the OP?

 

BTW, Johnson is a lawyer.  Not exactly something that would qualify him as an expert on the Flood ......

 

Now.... do you have anything substantive and relevant to contribute?  A scientific review of the Hydroplate model confirming Brown's claims would be really useful.....






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users