Where did all the Flood water go?

reply to post by stereologist


Why do you play at words with me ? I said the Bible coroborates itself. I suggest you pay more attention or soon you may appear incompetent.

reply to post by randyvs


Actually the bible does not corroborate itself. A couple of examples I can think of off hand are 2 creation myths in genesis that have events in different orders. Number 2 the bible claims that Abraham has one son and multiple sons. There are lots of places where the bible contradicts itself.

BTW, the word is spelled corroborates. Wouldn't want people to think you are incompetent.

reply to post by dusty1

Of course there is a difference. There is a reason that continents are above sea level.
Why didn't you just say that continental crust is less dense than oceanic crust?

Sea level is related to the amount of water in the oceans. It is more than the difference in the materials involved.

It is interesting though, that marine fossils are found on continents at high elevation.

DaVinci was the first person to openly show that the fossils were not due to the biblical flood or any flood for that matter.

The hypsometric curve shows that a smooth Earth is not possible and has not existed for billions of years. The claim you make about sufficient water to cover everything is clearly false.

reply to post by stereologist

The hypsometric curve shows that a smooth Earth is not possible and has not existed for billions of years. The claim you make about sufficient water to cover everything is clearly false.

I did not claim the earth was ever smooth.

You are stating a smooth earth is not possible and has not existed for billions of years. Which is it?

Stages of youth, maturity, and old age in regions of homogeneous rock give a distinctive series of hypsometric forms, but mature and old stages give identical curves unless monadnock masses are present

Link

Please demonstrate how the hypsometric curve measures billions of years.

reply to post by dusty1

You are stating a smooth earth is not possible and has not existed for billions of years. Which is it? /quote]
Do I spell out the obvious to you all of the time? Sheesh.

The differentiation of continental material from the Earth as a whole is an ongoing process. Much happened early on in the formation of the Earth. The early Earth would not have had the pronounced curve we have today due to a lack of differentiation.

Venus is an example of the form of the hypsometric curve for the early Earth.

There is insufficient water to cover the Earth in a global flood.

reply to post by stereologist

The differentiation of continental material from the Earth as a whole is an ongoing process. Much happened early on in the formation of the Earth. The early Earth would not have had the pronounced curve we have today due to a lack of differentiation.

So you are saying that the earth was flatter in the past?

That is cool, 'cause that is what I'm sayin'.

The hypsometric curve shows that a smooth Earth is not possible and has not existed for billions of years.

I am still waiting for you to demonstrate how the hypsometric curve measures billions of years, as you asserted.

Please respond, otherwise I might get the impression you were trying to muddy the waters (pun intended) with an empirical cumulative distribution function that has nothing to do with the measurement of time.

reply to post by streologist


Well as long as whatever spelling gets the point across . But thanks for the corection.
I guess not being fresh out of high school is showing. Also I altready know I'm incompetent. If it comes as a shock for others it's no big deal to me. So you can show a few places where the Bible seems to contradict itself. I could show many ways it corelates as well. But why bother you know your statement that it doesn't is a lie. As well as do Maybe I just need a bit more of a challenge.

Dusty
Muddy the waters. That's very good.






:

reply to post by randyvs

Dusty Muddy the waters. That's very good.

Thank you, thank you very much.

I'll be here all week.

Make sure you try the veal, and please tip your waitress.

Originally posted by randyvs
Maybe I just need a bit more of a challenge

A geological structure? Is that the best you can do?

No contest here.

reply to post by dusty1

So you are saying that the earth was flatter in the past?

That is cool, 'cause that is what I'm sayin'.

Not flatter, smoother. Big difference. That would have been like 4 billion years ago. There was unlikely to be an ocean at that time.

Please respond, otherwise I might get the impression you were trying to muddy the waters (pun intended) with an empirical cumulative distribution function that has nothing to do with the measurement of time.

Obviously it has nothing to do with time. I have already provided the information and if you choose to ignore then that is your problem. Here is tad more.

en.wikipedia.org...

Because the Earth lacked an atmosphere immediately after the giant impact, cooling must have occurred quickly. Within 150 million years, a solid crust with a basaltic composition must have formed. The felsic continental crust of today did not yet exist.

So far your claim of sufficient water is complete failure. You made a claim and completely failed to show anything other than the amount of water on the Earth.

reply to post by aorAki


I really just picked out the first thing I came across with out really even reading it. Call it boredom my friend.
Aor you know I can do much better than that. We've had our go rounds. Not always delightful but we've had some laughs as I rermember. Do you dare tempest thou in your ways cynicality?

reply to post by randyvs


I see.Now you pull out that famous hoax where a rock fold is claimed to be the ark. I love where the hoaxers claim that some fibrous minerals are petrified hair. If the material were actually fossils then the structure of the biological material would have been preserved. These are nothing more than inorganic pieces of rock.

Gotta love the anchors stones. The stones are from a local formation and not from the area of Mesopotamia where Noah is supposed to have started his voyage. Did Noah really import stones from his final destination? Maybe he had a rent to own on the anchors!

Let's ask some real scientists about this hoax.
www.csun.edu...

A natural rock structure near Dogubayazit, Turkey, has been misidentified as Noah's Ark. Microscopic studies of a supposed iron bracket show that it is derived from weathered volcanic minerals. Supposed metal-braced walls are natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite in steeply inclined sedimentary layers in the limbs of a doubly plunging syncline. Supposed fossilized gopherwood bark is crinkled metamorphosed peridotite. Fossiliferous limestone, interpreted as cross cutting the syncline, preclude the structure from being Noah's Ark because these supposed "Flood" deposits are younger than the "Ark." Anchor stones at Kazan (Arzap) are derived from local andesite and not from Mesopotamia./quote]

And lets see what the website Answering Genesis has to say about it.
www.answersingenesis.org...
[quoqte]The site has been vigorously promoted by self-styled archaeologist and explorer Ron Wyatt since 1977, when he first visited Turkey and began investigations.

That's the Wyatt that claims he found just about everything mentioned in the bible.

It is Alleged That The pattern of ‘iron lines’ that was located by the metal detecting surveys and marked out by plastic tape was duplicated and verified by other subsurface techniques including ground penetrating, or subsurface interface, radar surveys, particularly the radar scans obtained by Fasold and Wyatt.

This claim is utterly false, yet it has been persistently used to give credence to diagrams purporting to show the internal structure of a boat, namely Noah’s Ark.

Seems that rascal Wyatt has been caught in yet another lie.

No trained scientist of the many who have visited the site has ever seen any sign of these ‘trainloads’ of petrified wood.

reply to post by randyvs


Hope you enjoy reading the Answering Genesis site as much as you enjoyed posting the page about a Wyatt promoted hoax.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by aorAki

 

I really just picked out the first thing I came across with out really even reading it.

Call it boredom my friend.
Aor you know I can do much better than that. We've had our go rounds. Not always delightful but we've had some laughs as I rermember. Do you dare tempest thou in your ways cynicality?

Yep, we both have had our 'fun' that's for sure

reply to post by stereologist

Not flatter, smoother. Big difference. That would have been like 4 billion years ago. There was unlikely to be an ocean at that time.

OK. I should have said the hypsometric curve was flatter, not the earth.

So we agree the earth was not smooth but smoother.

So you said:

The hypsometric curve shows that a smooth Earth is not possible and has not existed for billions of years.

Now you are clarifying:

Obviously it has nothing to do with time. I have already provided the information and if you choose to ignore then that is your problem. Here is tad more.

Yes obviously.

So far your claim of sufficient water is complete failure. You made a claim and completely failed to show anything other than the amount of water on the Earth.

There is a sufficient amount of water to temporarily cover the entire earth:

abundance of water on Earth’s surface (in ocean (Earth feature)) ...the elevated land could be hidden under the oceans and the Earth reduced to a smooth sphere that would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres deep. This is known as the sphere depth of the oceans and serves to underscore the abundance of water on the Earth’s surface.

Link

The mass of the oceans is approximately 1.35×1018 metric tons, or about 1/4400 of the total mass of the Earth. The oceans cover an area of 3.618×108 km2 with a mean depth of 3,682 m, resulting in an estimated volume of 1.332×109 km3.[101] If all the land on Earth were spread evenly, water would rise to an altitude of more than 2.7 km

Earth Hydrosphere

The Bible claims that the mountains were covered by 15 cubits or 22.5 feet of water.

This would still allow a variance in the pre-flood topography of the lithosphere, of up to 8789.72 feet (2679.13 meters) and the planet could be submerged under water.

Isostasy would then make the continents rise. Perhaps we would see evidence of Planation Surfaces

Other forces would create higher mountains.

Certain areas (such as the Himalayas) are not in isostatic equilibrium, which has forced researchers to identify other reasons to explain their topographic heights (in the case of the Himalayas, which are still rising), by proposing that their elevation is being "propped-up" by the force of the impacting Indian plate

There is technically enough water to cover the earth.

That is a fact.

reply to post by dusty1

There is a sufficient amount of water to temporarily cover the entire earth:

Not true. That would require smoothing out the Earth something that cannot happen. Isostasy prevents that from happening. Isostasy would not make the mountains rise. It would prevent the mountains from being depressed in the first place.

The Bible claims that the mountains were covered by 15 cubits or 22.5 feet of water.

To cover Everest would require the addition of 14x the volume of the Atlantic ocean. That's a lot of water.

There is technically enough water to cover the earth.
That is a fact.

But not under the conditions you propose. The only way to avoid isostasy issues is to have an undifferentiated world. That existed billions of years ago, not in historic times.

As I stated before the only that the flood works is if a miracle happens during the flood in which the world is completely restructured including differentiation, and a nearly complete change in the Earth from the structure of the continents to the ocean basins.

Then again there are so many insurmountable problems with the flood that this is just a drop in the bucket so to speak.

There is new data that has put the expanding earth theory to bed.
If you want to expand your knowledge read on.
Link

The beginnings of Pangaea is not natural in the Universe.

Do we assume Venus also started with a bulge on one side and over millions of years made uniform valleys and peaks? No.

Planets, moons, animals and plants all have uniform distribution of limbs or valleys and peaks. The Pangaea bulge of land on one side of the planet is not a natural process known to the Universe.

There has to be another method the continents spread across the globe of earth.

reply to post by lostinspace

The beginnings of Pangaea is not natural in the Universe.

There have been many super continents on Earth. The last one was Pangaea. The continents did not even start as continents, but were formed by accretion as the Earth differentiated.

Pangaea was formed by the collision of earlier continents. It was not an original continent that split apart as the expanding Earth theory claims.