Jump to content


Photo

Young Earth proofs, old earth attempts


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#61 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 June 2005 - 10:25 PM

As indicated in previous posts, the metamorphic rock/limestone/fossilized inverts. were formed before Mt. Everest was even formed.  To assume that ANY flooding event rose to nearly 30,000 ft. seems highly unlikely.

View Post


So, are you saying there is not enough water on this earth to acheive this?

#62 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 05 June 2005 - 02:18 PM

So, are you saying there is not enough water on this earth to acheive this?

View Post


From memory - if all the ice were to melt, the sea would rise about 70 meters.

#63 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 05 June 2005 - 10:26 PM

"He never wrote that letter nor is there any record of him recanting."

h*vind says his wife started that rumor. And he also says that so what if Darwin recanted on his death bed, that doesn't in any way effect the validity of lack thereof of a theory.

"Heat – Rapid changes like you proposed would, I think, cause rock to melt rather than mould.
Speed – Quickly bending rock would cause it to shatter and fragment, rather than bend.
Various areas of continents have been submerged, dry, and submerged again."

Which rapid changes are you referring to? The canopy falling would cause heat to be released yes at the gas turned back to a liquid, and yes the rock would be hot from the water shooting up from the subterranian water chambers, but hardly enough to melt the rock I wouldn't think.

"As indicated in previous posts, the metamorphic rock/limestone/fossilized inverts. were formed before Mt. Everest was even formed. To assume that ANY flooding event rose to nearly 30,000 ft. seems highly unlikely. "

You are again assuming that Mt. Everest was there. I guess the dirt that makes it today was there, but it was pretty flat.

"What prevents the water from squeezing out from under it at the edge of the continental shelf, do you propose the continent has a water tight skirt?"

Imagine a spherical shell of water beneath a layer of continental crust, probably very thin. Beneath that would be oceanic crust.

"So, are you saying there is not enough water on this earth to acheive this?"

Admin3, Mt. Everest probably wasn't there, along with almost all of the mts.

And by the way, I just wanted to say thank you Chance for being a much more polite and professional debater than some others I know of.

#64 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 June 2005 - 11:27 PM

From memory - if all the ice were to melt, the sea would rise about 70 meters.

View Post


Here's a link showing where all the water went. http://www.ldolphin....deepwaters.html

#65 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 06 June 2005 - 02:12 PM

chance> "Heat – Rapid changes like you proposed would, I think, cause rock to melt rather than mould.
Speed – Quickly bending rock would cause it to shatter and fragment, rather than bend.
Various areas of continents have been submerged, dry, and submerged again."

crystaleaglesprings> Which rapid changes are you referring to? The canopy falling would cause heat to be released yes at the gas turned back to a liquid, and yes the rock would be hot from the water shooting up from the subterranian water chambers, but hardly enough to melt the rock I wouldn't think.


chance> "What prevents the water from squeezing out from under it at the edge of the continental shelf, do you propose the continent has a water tight skirt?"

crystaleaglesprings> Imagine a spherical shell of water beneath a layer of continental crust, probably very thin. Beneath that would be oceanic crust.


In your original post you provided a link to “The Hydroplate Theory
by Dr. Walt Brown” stated that the continents would be moving and creating the mountain ranges post Noachian flood. I was under the impression that it was rock against rock, but apparently not. A re-read shows that there was a spherical global shell of free water 16 Klm deep and 1 klm thick. Which has it’s own problems.

I am having a very hard time trying to imagine such a geologic structure, currently crude oil and subterranean water is not actually a big hollow filled with liquid, rather the fluid is permeated through a porus rock. Sort of like a hard sponge underground.

For a subterranean spherical cavity to exist, I would expect the required strength of mantle above the water to be so strong to prevent collapse that no material artificial or synthetic exists. If it did exist could it be broken.

But by far the biggest problem is the moon.

Problem 1 - if the entire surface is ‘floating’ it will behave much like the oceans and respond to the gravitational pull of the moon. As the surface super continent is very much lighter than the remaining bulk of the earth is will attempt to lock gravitationally with the moon. You would then have the outer surface rotating slower than the core, the forces in the water would be unimaginable and erosion would be intense, the water would become superheated. I leave it to your imagination for the result.

Problem 2 – if we do not consider heat problems, a free floating shell will be pulled in the direction of the moon, the water will slide away quite freely and the outer and inner layers should meet! The consequences of this require not only the mantle be super strong, watertight, but must now be flexible (and preferably low friction)! Something like a shell of homogeneous diamond with the flexibility of spring steel comes to mind.

Problem 3 – If a porous rock was introduced to solve slippage problems, it would be pulverised in very short order. Even if one were to consider continental sized bridges 1 klm thick between the inner and outer layers I suspect the forces would concentrate at the edges and like the weakest link in a chain would fail one by one.

I’m sure there are more problems but that will suffice for now.


And by the way, I just wanted to say thank you Chance for being a much more polite and professional debater than some others I know of.

Thanks for the compliment. Even if we are opposed philosophically, there is no reason not to be civilised to one another, after all, manners cost nothing.

#66 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 06 June 2005 - 02:21 PM

Here's a link showing where all the water went. http://www.ldolphin....deepwaters.html

View Post


An interesting link from New Scientist, 30 August 1997, not sure how this is relevant to a Noachian flood, as the article seems to be referring to water trapped within the rock, in molecular quantities. True, that if summed, the volume would be impressive, but I don’t think they are stating any mechanism that could do such a thing.
It has long been known that most materials have some water in them (probably most). E.g. if you were ever in the Scouts one of the lessons you would have received was never to make a fire hearth out of river rocks as they can shatter quite spectacularly in a fire as the trapped water boils.

#67 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 June 2005 - 10:33 PM

Being under intense pressure raising the boiling point of water. Plus, if it has any percent of salt, the boiling point goes even higher. The thing is, the water is there which means there is enough to flood the whole earth. I have heard it explained that it was pushed down there by techtonic under water movment that trap the water and placed it in the mineral. Well, it still means the water was on the surface at one time.

This water cannot be brought up because to do so would broil the earth. I believe this was done so that when we found this water, it would be a testiment to God's promise to never flood the earth again. Also, science can't explain how it got there so deep and in so hot of a mineral. Here's my comment on how this happened. When water is put under pressure, it's boiling point rises. In other words, it would take more heat to acheive the water to boil. The higher the pressure, the more heat it takes. So when the earth was flooded to 5.5 miles, there was extreme pressure at the bottom. But, that's not the end of it. Some of our deepest oceans are 6.6 miles down. Ocean trenches are the deepest part of an ocean. The deepest one, the Marianas Trench in the South Pacific Ocean (6.6 mile down). That would be 12.1 miles down to the deepest part of the ocean during the flood. We'll round it off to 12 miles to make the math easier.

According to scuba diving books, every 33 feet you descend in water, doubles the atmospheric pressure. There are  5,280 feet in a mile. So 5,280 times 12 = 63360 feet, which equals 1920 atmospheres (63360 devided by 33). 1920 atmospheres equals 28,216.2066837 psi. Now the average boiling point of water at 30.00inHg is 212.15 F. So if you times 30.00inHg times 1920 atmospheres equals 57600.00inHg. The boiling point of water at this atmospheric pressure is 106820.27 F. And also keep in mind that salt in the water will raise this even higher. But we will keep this simple. Wadsleyite, the mineral that holds the water that receded from the flood, stays around 1832 F or more. So 106820.27 F is well within range for the water from the flood to go into this mineral without boiling away.

Source: http://yecheadquarte...catalog6.2.html

#68 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 June 2005 - 02:39 PM

Being under intense pressure raising the boiling point of water. Plus, if it has any percent of salt, the boiling point goes even higher. The thing is, the water is there which means there is enough to flood the whole earth. I have heard it explained that it was pushed down there by techtonic under water movment that trap the water and placed it in the mineral. Well, it still means the water was on the surface at one time.
Source: http://yecheadquarte...catalog6.2.html

View Post


OK, given the properties of the boiling point of water, the article is (I think) proposing that the earths crust was 100% desiccated prior to the flood, absolutely no water. I’m a bit out of my depth :) here but I would not think there would be enough pressure at the bottom of a Noachian ocean to force water molecules deep into the earth crust to penetrate the fabric of the rock itself.
Anyhow it should be very easily testable, get several rocks dry them out, or create some synthetic rock, submerged and pressurise, measure the intake of water.

#69 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 June 2005 - 12:35 PM

"He never wrote that letter nor is there any record of him recanting."

h*vind says his wife started that rumor. And he also says that so what if Darwin recanted on his death bed, that doesn't in any way effect the validity of lack thereof of a theory.

View Post


Actually, this shows how much a threat God and His creation is to the evolution theory. Who cares if Darwin did or did not, unless evolution actually is based on a non-belief in God.

Even as much as his theory has done to damage creation, unlike those who look at this subject as a threat to his theory. I'm actually happy for him if he did. Everyone deserves a chance to go to heaven. Even Darwin.

#70 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 June 2005 - 12:49 PM

OK, given the properties of the boiling point of water, the article is (I think) proposing that the earths crust was 100% desiccated prior to the flood, absolutely no water.  I’m a bit out of my depth :) here but I would not think there would be enough pressure at the bottom of a Noachian ocean to force water molecules deep into the earth crust to penetrate the fabric of the rock itself. 
Anyhow it should be very easily testable, get several rocks dry them out, or create some synthetic rock, submerged and pressurise, measure the intake of water.

View Post


The intense heat makes the mineral molten rock. Which would mean it's in a state of liquid form. So we have one liquid going into another. The only thing the pressure would prove is that the water could not, without changing into steam. That much water going into a mineral at that temp, would cause so much underground steam and expansion, I believe it would have really messed up the earth's crust. Possibly, even destroyed it. So the "pressure was needed" to acheive this water going into this meneral that is at molten rock temps. I have not seen any viable explanation of how that water got there, or whether it has been there all along. Because for it to even be there without boiling off, still requires the extreme pressures that the flood generated when the flood reached to the highest mountain.

#71 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 June 2005 - 02:32 PM

The intense heat makes the mineral molten rock. Which would mean it's in a state of liquid form. So we have one liquid going into another. The only thing the pressure would prove is that the water could not, without changing into steam. That much water going into a mineral at that temp, would cause so much underground steam and expansion, I believe it would have really messed up the earth's crust. Possibly, even destroyed it. So the "pressure was needed" to acheive this water going into this meneral that is at molten rock temps. I have not seen any viable explanation of how that water got there, or whether it has been there all along. Because for it to even be there without boiling off, still requires the extreme pressures that the flood generated when the flood reached to the highest mountain.

View Post


In the instance you provided I can see a way for rock to become permeated, but what you are proposing would convert much of the rock (perhaps all), to the metamorphic variety. And that is not the case.
But that still does not get past the problem of pressure directly beneath the ocean, i.e. there is just not enough.
Best explanation is that water is practically everywhere, and in everything.

#72 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 June 2005 - 07:48 PM

In the instance you provided I can see a way for rock to become permeated, but what you are proposing would convert much of the rock (perhaps all), to the metamorphic variety.  And that is not the case.
But that still does not get past the problem of pressure directly beneath the ocean, i.e. there is just not enough.
Best explanation is that water is practically everywhere, and in everything.

View Post


If there's not enough. How much pressure would it take?

#73 Mariner Fan

Mariner Fan

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Great Northwest

Posted 15 June 2005 - 08:57 AM

The intense heat makes the mineral molten rock. Which would mean it's in a state of liquid form. So we have one liquid going into another. The only thing the pressure would prove is that the water could not, without changing into steam. That much water going into a mineral at that temp, would cause so much underground steam and expansion, I believe it would have really messed up the earth's crust. Possibly, even destroyed it. So the "pressure was needed" to acheive this water going into this meneral that is at molten rock temps. I have not seen any viable explanation of how that water got there, or whether it has been there all along. Because for it to even be there without boiling off, still requires the extreme pressures that the flood generated when the flood reached to the highest mountain.

View Post


The other problem I see is that the "pressure needed" is only calculated at the height of the flood. As the flood waters begin to move into the molten rock the level of the flood waters will drop. Would there be enough pressure if the oceans were 500 feet higher than they are now? It wouldn't seem so.

For the next "problem", I am assuming that the current oceans account for 1/3 of the total found during the flood (an underestimate I would think). In this case, we have 2/3 of the flood waters being heated to fantastic temperatures without any of this heat being transferred to the rest of the flood waters. I can't find any calculations, but I think it would be fair to say that raising the ocean temps by even 30 degrees centigrade would result in conditions that are not conducive to life as we know it here on earth, except for the most durable microorganisms.

#74 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 June 2005 - 02:40 PM

If there's not enough. How much pressure would it take?

View Post


Don’t know, but something else much more important has just occurred to me. As a rock is a solid, it is not affected to any great extent by pressure. Water under temperature is affect by pressure, but that is only because it has a low boiling point and the boiling point is made higher under pressure (ie. it wants to turn into a gas). Basically what I’m saying is a solid will not feel pressure, temperature yes, but not pressure.
e.g. deep ocean fish survive quite well under the extreme pressure, this is because they are basically a solid (or liquid), the extreme pressure is not forcing water into the fish, nor a rock at the bottom of the ocean.

#75 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 15 June 2005 - 10:34 PM

"the extreme pressure is not forcing water into the fish, nor a rock at the bottom of the ocean. "

A: Fish are alive and made to survive in the ocean
B: The ocean floor doesn't have as much pressure on it now, nor is it hardly as molten as it was.

"but I think it would be fair to say that raising the ocean temps by even 30 degrees centigrade would result in conditions that are not conducive to life as we know it here on earth, except for the most durable microorganisms. "

Yep. That's why all the people and animals died. God replenished the earth after the flood, there's nothing wrong with making more animals or plants, making more humans would be entirely different.

#76 Mariner Fan

Mariner Fan

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Great Northwest

Posted 16 June 2005 - 01:50 PM

"the extreme pressure is not forcing water into the fish, nor a rock at the bottom of the ocean. "

A: Fish are alive and made to survive in the ocean
B: The ocean floor doesn't have as much pressure on it now, nor is it hardly as molten as it was.


Fish survive because the pressure on each side of their tissues is the same. Submarines implode because their internal pressure is much lower than the outside pressure. For us air breathers the difference between air and water pressure is the thing that gets us. Almost all rocks are porous, so any air pockets will be filled with water. However, in the case of the wadsylite, we do not find water droplets but molecular amounts of water. This type of water inclusion requires intense pressures and the presence of water when the rock goes from molten to solid form.

"but I think it would be fair to say that raising the ocean temps by even 30 degrees centigrade would result in conditions that are not conducive to life as we know it here on earth, except for the most durable microorganisms. "

Yep. That's why all the people and animals died. God replenished the earth after the flood, there's nothing wrong with making more animals or plants, making more humans would be entirely different.

View Post


If I remember correctly, the Bible says that Noah, his family, and the animals on the Ark survived so not everyone died. Raising the temp of the ocean would make it very improbable that life above the surface of the ocean survived due to a drastic increase in atmospheric pressure and temperature. Think pressure cooker. There would have been no life left to replenish the earth.

#77 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 17 June 2005 - 09:58 PM

There is indeed a heat problem with catastrophic plate tectonics as proposed by YEC scientist John Baoumgardner, and a debate has been raging on this topic in the TJ (AiG’s peer-reviewed journal). I’m not completely up on this in-house debate, but there are alternative models that do not have a heat problem. Michael Oard has one such model, I’ll leave it up to the reader to track it down. :rolleyes:

For the record, I am skeptical of Baumgardner’s plate tectonics theory for primarily one reason, and it is completely unscientific – see 1 Corinthians 3:18-21.

Fred

#78 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 June 2005 - 11:56 PM

According to scuba diving books, every 33 feet you descend in water, doubles the atmospheric pressure.
There are  5,280 feet in a mile. So 5,280 times 12 = 63360 feet, which equals 1920 atmospheres (63360 devided by 33). 1920 atmospheres equals 28,216.2066837 psi.
Now the average boiling point of water at 30.00inHg is 212.15 F. So if you times 30.00inHg times 1920 atmospheres equals 57600.00inHg.
The boiling point of water at this atmospheric pressure is 106820.27 F. And also keep in mind that salt in the water will raise this even higher. But we will keep this simple. Wadsleyite, the mineral that holds the water that receded from the flood, stays around 1832 F or more. So 106820.27 F is well within range for the water from the flood to go into this mineral without boiling away.


The link I left to this page: http://yecheadquarte...catalog6.2.html
Has a boiling point calculator according to atmospheric pressure, or numbers of atmospheres as you go deeper in water.

Hydro thermal vents can hold some evidence to this as well.
http://www.ocean.ude...logy/vents.html

As the vent water bursts out into the ocean, its temperature may be as high as 400°C (750°F). Yet this water does not boil because it is under so much pressure from the tremendous weight of the ocean above. When the pressure on a liquid is increased, its boiling point goes up.




http://seawifs.gsfc...._revealed1.html
http://www.botos.com...ne/vents01.html

Animation: http://www.onr.navy....tats/vents1.htm

#79 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 June 2005 - 03:52 PM

There is indeed a heat problem with catastrophic plate tectonics as proposed by YEC scientist John Baoumgardner, and a debate has been raging on this topic in the TJ (AiG’s peer-reviewed journal). I’m not completely up on this in-house debate, but there are alternative models that do not have a heat problem. Michael Oard has one such model, I’ll leave it up to the reader to track it down. :)


I'm not up in it at the moment either, but I think Baumgartner's model works much better than Oard's with the magnetic reversal's on the ocean floor and continental spreading.

Actually, I think this whole topic is kind of funny.... :rolleyes:

When divine intervention is involved, and the flood is clearly an example of this, then should we really expect to find 100% naturalistic explanation for what came out on the other side?

I don't think so.....

If so, then the only way I can think of to explain the flood in a biblical context would be to say that the Lord kind of set nature up in advance such the downfall of the human race was timed with the flood. I think the best we can do is find scenarios that closely explain things, and evidence of the flood, and leave the rest to the Lord.

There is nothing wrong with persuing a scientific explanation, but to demand a %100 valid scientific solution is not really any different than demanding a %100 pure scientific explanation for life. There is nothing wrong with objecting to certain problems either, but in the cases of divine intervention, we should also not be surprised to find problems.

If we think about the 4.5 billion years of nuclear decay, and 6k years of helium leakage, then this is exactly the type of naturalistic inconsistancies we should expect when the Lord is directly involved.

Why do we think its OK to accept the fact that God created life in a divine fashion, but then expect the flood not to have scientific problems? IOW, it was a miracle, and there is likely not a good scientific explanation for what happened during the flood.

Respectfully,

Terry

#80 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 19 June 2005 - 09:47 PM

I'm not up in it at the moment either, but I think Baumgartner's model works much better than Oard's with the magnetic reversal's on the ocean floor and continental spreading.

View Post


Terry, I pretty much agree with your post. God wasn't required to leave 100% evidence for how He Created, caused the flood, etc. However, there are certain truths that I believe are inescapable, from both a Biblical and scientific point of view, such as a young world and global flood.

Reminder to my OEC friends: the age of the earth is not a salvation issue, but I believe it is important because if you compromise on Genesis, you place yourself on a slippery slope you may slide down, or those around you who you influence. Every liberal church in America, where all kinds of heresies are now accepted (i.e. abortion, h*mosexual pastors, etc), began the slide after compromising on Genesis. I personally know of no exceptions to this.

Fred
PS. A geologist in our local creation group knows one of the scientists who measured the magnetism of rocks on the ocean floor, and they said there really were no reversals, just weaker vs stronger polarity. Maybe someone can elaborate on this. Geology is my least favorite topic in the origins debate, and it will show if I try to post too much on the subject. :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users