Jump to content


Photo

Polar Wander Theory And The Flood!


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 dad

dad

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Age: 00
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • western world

Posted 23 January 2018 - 10:42 PM

"The theory, known as true polar wander, postulates that if an object of sufficient weight -- such as a supersized volcano -- ever formed far from the equator, the force of the planet’s rotation would gradually pull the heavy object away from the axis the Earth spins around. If the volcanoes, land and other masses that exist within the spinning Earth ever became sufficiently imbalanced, the planet would tilt and rotate itself until this extra weight was relocated to a point along the equator."

https://www.princeto....say-scientists


So if something with a lot of mass was in one area of the planet, the 'extra weight' would shift toward the equator, and " force our entire planet to spin on its side"

The flood water is said to have come from above, with windows of heaven opened to bring the water from the other side of space or the firmament down to the planet.

They say there is about 321 cubic miles of water in the oceans.

"According to the U.S. Geological Survey, there are over

332,519,000 cubic miles

of water on the planet. A cubic mile is the volume of a cube measuring one mile on each side. Of this vast volume of water, NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center estimates that

321,003,271 cubic miles

is in the ocean."

https://www.quora.co....-sea-and-ocean


If there was far far less water before the flood, then we can guesstimate that a lot of this water came from the flood. A lot may have also been taken away after the flood also somehow from earth, so we don't really have any exact figures. Let's just say for example (no I am not claiming this exact number) the flood waters were about 300 cubic miles of water brought onto the planet. Since we know that the source for the water was areas of the sky (also areas on earth that brought water from below) we can probably assume that hundreds or thousands of millions of cubic miles of water came from each of these spots. (fountains of the deep and the windows in the sky).

As an example we could have 12 windows of heaven and 12 founts of the deep that brought in 300 million cubic miles of water from the flood! So 300 divided by 24 is about 12.5. So each of these founts or windows of heaven brought in, in this example, 12.5 million cubic miles of water!


Now a large volcano in Hawaii is about 2000 sq miles apparently.

"largest active volcano on Earth, Mauna Loa in Hawaii, which measures about 2,000 square miles (5,200 square kilometers)."

https://news.nationa....raphy-science/


The question comes to mind that if we had hundreds of millions of cubic MILES of water suddenly on earth, that may have forced the entire planet to spin 'on it's side'!

True_polar_wander.jpg



#2 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 28 January 2018 - 01:41 PM

"The theory, known as true polar wander, postulates that if an object of sufficient weight -- such as a supersized volcano -- ever formed far from the equator, the force of the planet’s rotation would gradually pull the heavy object away from the axis the Earth spins around. If the volcanoes, land and other masses that exist within the spinning Earth ever became sufficiently imbalanced, the planet would tilt and rotate itself until this extra weight was relocated to a point along the equator."

https://www.princeto....say-scientists


So if something with a lot of mass was in one area of the planet, the 'extra weight' would shift toward the equator, and " force our entire planet to spin on its side"

From your source:

Polar wander can tip the entire planet on its side at a rate of perhaps several meters per year, about 10 to 100 times as fast as the continents drift due to plate tectonics

 

That's still thousands of times slower than what would be necessary to get any meaningful change during the alleged flood year. 

 

There is also the fact that the Bible itself mentions there were "seasons" at the time of creation.  Seasons are mainly due to the tilt of Earth on its axis.

 

The flood water is said to have come from above, with windows of heaven opened to bring the water from the other side of space or the firmament down to the planet.
.....
If there was far far less water before the flood, then we can guesstimate that a lot of this water came from the flood. A lot may have also been taken away after the flood also somehow from earth, so we don't really have any exact figures. Let's just say for example (no I am not claiming this exact number) the flood waters were about 300 cubic miles of water brought onto the planet. Since we know that the source for the water was areas of the sky (also areas on earth that brought water from below) we can probably assume that hundreds or thousands of millions of cubic miles of water came from each of these spots. (fountains of the deep and the windows in the sky).

As an example we could have 12 windows of heaven and 12 founts of the deep that brought in 300 million cubic miles of water from the flood! So 300 divided by 24 is about 12.5. So each of these founts or windows of heaven brought in, in this example, 12.5 million cubic miles of water!

I'm guessing that when you say 300, you really mean 300,000,000.

 

There are a couple obvious problems here.... 

Let's assume the most extreme case .... that the water is deposited as far from the equator as possible, at the poles.  If the water were deposited at both poles, it would create equal and opposite torque which would cancel itself out.  There would be no net change in the position of the poles.

 

If the water were deposited only at one pole, the "self-leveling" property of water would cause it to rapidly flow toward thru equator to the opposite pole.  This would create a tsunami of unbelievable proportions.  Noah's ark would be reduced to kindling when this water impacted it.

 

Besides, why do you need the poles to have "wandered" during the alleged flood?



#3 dad

dad

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Age: 00
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • western world

Posted 31 January 2018 - 08:09 AM


 

 

 

 

From your source:

Polar wander can tip the entire planet on its side at a rate of perhaps several meters per year, about 10 to 100 times as fast as the continents drift due to plate tectonics

 

That's still thousands of times slower than what would be necessary to get any meaningful change during the alleged flood year. 

 

There is also the fact that the Bible itself mentions there were "seasons" at the time of creation.  Seasons are mainly due to the tilt of Earth on its axis.

 

 

 

 

 Right, so would there not be season if the axis was somewhat different? The figure of how fast the earth would adjust to new weight that you cite is based on the current realities of this present nature. They do not apply if it was the former nature.

 

Nor does it have to be that the possible changes in the tilt of earth were the main factor! But I suggest people be careful trying to rewind orbits and seasons and cycles and such into the far past.

 

I'm guessing that when you say 300, you really mean 300,000,000.

 

 

 

 

I did say 300 million.

 

There are a couple obvious problems here.... 

Let's assume the most extreme case .... that the water is deposited as far from the equator as possible, at the poles.  If the water were deposited at both poles, it would create equal and opposite torque which would cancel itself out.  There would be no net change in the position of the poles.

 

If the water were deposited only at one pole, the "self-leveling" property of water would cause it to rapidly flow toward thru equator to the opposite pole.  This would create a tsunami of unbelievable proportions.  Noah's ark would be reduced to kindling when this water impacted it.

 

Besides, why do you need the poles to have "wandered" during the alleged flood?

 

 

 

 I don't. But a world of water is heavy. Since we do not know where the water sources were, you cannot speculate about poles. The poles may not even have been the poles exactly at that time. Heck, we do not even know if the earth was spinning the same. E do know that a planet full of water is heavy though.

 

 

You should remember that the flood was not some act of nature. The flood was a precision operation planned and carried out by the maker of the entire universe, and probably carried out in a different nature.



#4 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 31 January 2018 - 11:41 AM

Right, so would there not be season if the axis was somewhat different? The figure of how fast the earth would adjust to new weight that you cite is based on the current realities of this present nature. They do not apply if it was the former nature.

 

Nor does it have to be that the possible changes in the tilt of earth were the main factor! But I suggest people be careful trying to rewind orbits and seasons and cycles and such into the far past.

 

If there was no tilt there wouldn't be any real seasons. There may be a tiny bit of fluctuation due to Earth's elliptical orbit, but for reference, in the northern hemisphere, the Earth is closer to the Sun during winter and farther away during summer. Saying that a region of Earth that gets roughly the same amount of energy from the Sun all throughout the year will have distinct seasons ranging from summer to winter is nonsensical. With miracles and magic anything is possible, but a staple of rational thinking is that all else being equal, the possibility with the least amount of assumptions is most likely to be correct.

 

As for the laws of nature changing, wouldn't it be more parsimonious to work with the axiom that the laws of nature do not change (at least not significantly over several billion years), especially since various astronomical observations (and the Oklo reactor) which ought to hint at such changes are 100% consistent with the laws of nature remaining virtually unchanged for billions of years?
 



#5 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 31 January 2018 - 04:29 PM

 

From your source:

Polar wander can tip the entire planet on its side at a rate of perhaps several meters per year, about 10 to 100 times as fast as the continents drift due to plate tectonics

 

That's still thousands of times slower than what would be necessary to get any meaningful change during the alleged flood year. 

 

There is also the fact that the Bible itself mentions there were "seasons" at the time of creation.  Seasons are mainly due to the tilt of Earth on its axis.

Right, so would there not be season if the axis was somewhat different? The figure of how fast the earth would adjust to new weight that you cite is based on the current realities of this present nature. They do not apply if it was the former nature.

Since you provide nothing at all about the "former nature" other than it's necessary to support your Biblical view, there is no way to test your claims.

 

 

 

I'm guessing that when you say 300, you really mean 300,000,000.

I did say 300 million.

Not always.  I quote:

.....
They say there is about 321 cubic miles of water in the oceans.

 

 

 

There are a couple obvious problems here.... 

Let's assume the most extreme case .... that the water is deposited as far from the equator as possible, at the poles.  If the water were deposited at both poles, it would create equal and opposite torque which would cancel itself out.  There would be no net change in the position of the poles.

 

If the water were deposited only at one pole, the "self-leveling" property of water would cause it to rapidly flow toward thru equator to the opposite pole.  This would create a tsunami of unbelievable proportions.  Noah's ark would be reduced to kindling when this water impacted it.

 

Besides, why do you need the poles to have "wandered" during the alleged flood?

 I don't. But a world of water is heavy. Since we do not know where the water sources were, you cannot speculate about poles. The poles may not even have been the poles exactly at that time. Heck, we do not even know if the earth was spinning the same. E do know that a planet full of water is heavy though.

 

You should remember that the flood was not some act of nature. The flood was a precision operation planned and carried out by the maker of the entire universe, and probably carried out in a different nature.

Water is not near as heavy as rock.

 

The proposal is that a large amount of mass far from the equator will cause the Earth's axis to tilt.  The farthest point from the equator is the pole.  This is where the weight will have the greatest leverage.

 

I guess in your alternative (undefined) reality, water will be heavier than rock; a rotating object does not rotate about its axis; poles are not perpendicular to equators; and leverage doesn't work the same way it does in this reality.

 

 

You should remember that the flood was not some act of nature. The flood was a precision operation planned and carried out by the maker of the entire universe, and probably carried out in a different nature.

Why would God need to created a new nature?  Can't He simply suspend the natural laws of this reality and carry out His divine plan directly?

 

You are again proposing an alternative, undefined, and untestable claim based only on your view of Bible apologetics.



#6 dad

dad

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Age: 00
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • western world

Posted 31 January 2018 - 08:32 PM

If there was no tilt there wouldn't be any real seasons.

 

 

 

 Seems to me there would be a tilt even if it got more or less tilted due to some massive object or weight changing that tilt?

 

 

 

There may be a tiny bit of fluctuation due to Earth's elliptical orbit, but for reference, in the northern hemisphere, the Earth is closer to the Sun during winter and farther away during summer. Saying that a region of Earth that gets roughly the same amount of energy from the Sun all throughout the year will have distinct seasons ranging from summer to winter is nonsensical. With miracles and magic anything is possible, but a staple of rational thinking is that all else being equal, the possibility with the least amount of assumptions is most likely to be correct.

 

 

 

 

 

They do claim that what is not the polar regions once experience different climates. The proponents of the polar wander theory, I think work with that change.

 


 

As for the laws of nature changing, wouldn't it be more parsimonious to work with the axiom that the laws of nature do not change (at least not significantly over several billion years), especially since various astronomical observations (and the Oklo reactor) which ought to hint at such changes are 100% consistent with the laws of nature remaining virtually unchanged for billions of years?

 

 

 No. There is no billions of years. Your imaginary years are based on a misunderstanding of what time is and what it is like in deep space. As for Oklo, that is a fable. Can you prove that the sites were magically dunked miles under the surface of the planet as claimed at just the right time they need it to have happened? How about can you prove the sites miraculously resurfaced on cue as needed eons later? The Oklo fable is a plethora of events that 'had to' have happened to make a nuclear reaction in THIS nature! 



#7 dad

dad

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Age: 00
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • western world

Posted 31 January 2018 - 08:49 PM

Since you provide nothing at all about the "former nature" other than it's necessary to support your Biblical view, there is no way to test your claims.

 

 

 

 

Nor any need to. All that matters is whether science knows what laws and nature were in place or not. 

 

I have zero need to know, I can read about the past in God's word. People lived 1000 years, trees grew fast etc etc.

 

Not always.  I quote:

 

 

 

 

Right, so the link was given. Hope we got that approx guesstimate of how much water the flood brought to the planet.

 

 

Water is not near as heavy as rock.

 

 

 

 

 Still, a cubic mile of water is heavy. 300 million cubic miles of water is even heavier. You kidding?

 

The proposal is that a large amount of mass far from the equator will cause the Earth's axis to tilt.  The farthest point from the equator is the pole.  This is where the weight will have the greatest leverage.

 

 

 

Water has mass. For all we know the windows of heaven that opened were far from equator!? So?

 

.

 

Why would God need to created a new nature?  Can't He simply suspend the natural laws of this reality and carry out His divine plan directly?

 

 

 

 

 You could ask why does He need to change it in the future when He comes to earth to rule with His people? You could ask why He even burns at least the whole surface of the planet and creates a new earth in the future? Why will there be no more oceans? Why will the stars fall? We could ask why He kicked man out of Eden? Why did He send oceans to the planet in the flood? Then why did He take the waters away? 

 

Well, usually He seems to do things for us! Fir man. He made the stars above for us to mark time here! He kicked man out of Eden to learn stuff. He sent the flood so mankind could be saved, by having the wicked culled till His salvation plan could be worked out. So maybe nature changed for our benefit also. Maybe living 1000 years would be a bad thing for all the little sinning Hitlers in the world now? Who knows? Why not give Him the benefit of the doubt that He knew how to create and change things for us as needed?

 

 

You are again proposing an alternative, undefined, and untestable claim based only on your view of Bible apologetics.

 

 

 

 A simple reading of the future and past in the bible shows great differences in nature actually. Don't blame me that science is so puny so as to be unable to know much.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users