"The Whole Silly Flood Story"

Originally posted by Kailassa
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

Supposedly, during the flood, the earth was entirely submerged in water.
You are saying that plate movement, by changing the shape of the terrain and making valleys, lowered the water level.

Let's try a little experiment:

1. Fill an aquarium 1/3rd full of clay and sand.
2. Flatten this mixture out.
3. Fill the aquarium to the 2/3rds mark with water.
4. Change the terrain of the clay/sand bottom by pressing deep trenches into it.

RESULT:
The water level will be unchanged.

You totally missed the point, a new area opened up to hold the water, take your same experiment but attach a sealed tube to the bottom of the aquarium 1 meter deep by 500 cm wide cut a hole in the aquarium.
The result the water level decreased equal to the new area available for the water to now go.
Again the water still stays within the system.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Well, that happening would result in evidence being left behind...and there is none...soooo

I am not sure if this has been mentioned, as I have reached only page 8. I need to sleep, so here it is.

There is a reason that great flood mythologies mesh extremely well with early examples of civilization. The single most important aspect of the first city-states was...food(agriculture & animal husbandry). A good harvest and a bountiful stock of domesticated animals was central to the survival of a city-state. What is one of the most damaging forms of natural disaster to strike agriculture & animal husbandry(consider the context of stone age tools & technology)?

Floods.

It is only natural that stories of destruction caused by flooding would be passed along orally in the many cultures that had been inundated. As an earlier poster pointed out: There are some cultures that do not have legends of great floods. That fact is a good argument against a worldwide Deluge.

I don't understand why creationists insist that the story of Noah & the Flood is historical fact. Do these people not realize that their biblical version of the story is merely a retelling of portions of the Epic of Gilgamesh? That story predates the bible by at least 1000 years.

So, to wrap things up. Food was the most important aspect of early city-states. Floods were one of the most destructive natural disasters to strike city-states. Finally, some of the early stories of Genesis are ripoffs of stories told by earlier cultures.

Does anyone still believe that Noah built his Grand Ark and preserved the food chain of land organisms from the threat of a supernatural flood?

Logical Analysis of the Flood Story

the article points out many fatal flaws with the literalist biblical flood story, including my favorite:

Gonorrhea

It is a strictly human disease. Did the Good Lord bestow the gift of gonorrhea on Adam, or was it Eve? Who carried it onto the Ark? Why would God instruct Noah to carry any disease organisms or parasites onto the Ark? One of Noah's family had to have been infected, but they were the only people worthy enough to be saved on the whole Earth. Which one had the clap? Why would He create anything so nasty anyway? -suggested by Noah Riggins

and then there's the population arguement:

Well, as far as I know all diseases occur in this dimension because of karma(sins) accumulated in another dimension, that is a substance and one can take an aura shot(measure the bio-frequencies emitted from all fingers) to get an idea how much of the black stuff one has accumulated.

Whichever disease it concerns the true origin is black murky karma accumulated in another dimension.

People pay off karma by suffering hardships so they can transform the karma back to virtue again. And it can accumulate over many lifetimes. That is why alot of suffering before death is a good thing(in opposition to modern mas ideas about comfort) so one can have a better next life.

All diseases have to conform to the state of ordinary society. That is why you often can trace the origin of HIV/Gonorrhea to some sort of sexual activity...

So people(maybe including Adam and Eve) did something wrong and they got sick(retribution) because of their karma.

Just my two cents, no truth offered whatsoever.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Kailassa
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

Supposedly, during the flood, the earth was entirely submerged in water.
You are saying that plate movement, by changing the shape of the terrain and making valleys, lowered the water level.

Let's try a little experiment:

1. Fill an aquarium 1/3rd full of clay and sand.
2. Flatten this mixture out.
3. Fill the aquarium to the 2/3rds mark with water.
4. Change the terrain of the clay/sand bottom by pressing deep trenches into it.

RESULT:
The water level will be unchanged.

You totally missed the point, a new area opened up to hold the water, take your same experiment but attach a sealed tube to the bottom of the aquarium 1 meter deep by 500 cm wide cut a hole in the aquarium.
The result the water level decreased equal to the new area available for the water to now go.
Again the water still stays within the system.

No, I didn't miss the point. You just like playing the creationist, which means changing or adding to your explanation when it's proven to you your explanation didn't stand up.

First you said digging a ditch would decrease the water level.
Now you say the ditch you dug had a plug-hole in it, and a drainage tube leading to a place the water could drain to.

Do you subscribe to the hollow earth theory now?

reply to post by Kailassa


I am sorry you can't understand the concept.

c'est la vie !

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Kailassa

 

I am sorry you can't understand the concept.

c'est la vie !

No offense, but it seems as if you're trying really really hard to come up with concepts just so that the Noah story still works out...but there's ZERO scientific evidence that would support your claims.

Science => Here's the evidence, now what's the conclusion we can draw from that.
Religion => Here's the conclusion, now where can we find evidence to support our claims.

You are basically drawing a conclusion before even looking at evidence...and continue to believe in your illogical conclusion even if no evidence backs it up. I guess that's why it's called a belief...it isn't based on logic or rationality.

You are basing your opinion on the very same book that outlaws this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b004c643cbb6.jpg[/atsimg]

I like lobster!!!

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Kailassa

 

I am sorry you can't understand the concept.
c'est la vie !

I understand completely.

A few mentally challenged believers have put together simple fairy-tales which they hope sound scientific, in order to explain away parts of a big fairy tale which are exceptionally ridiculous.

When these fairy-tale explanations are proven impossible they make up new fairy-tales.

A few equally mentally challenged preachers latch on to these fairy-tale explanations and pass garbled versions onto their congregations.

A few ingenues from the audience attempt to remember the garble they've heard, and post even more garbled versions of it on forums.

Naturally, when this latter group are questioned on their posts, they are incapable of providing intelligent answers, and have to make do with smart-arse replies instead.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


...ok, but we're not talking about aquariums or buckets, we're talking about a planet that has massive differences between its low point and its high point. You would have to raise the ocean floors to the point where they're relatively kiddie pools for the idea of terrain redistribution to work out.


reply to post by Blue_Jay33



And I'm sorry you lack an understanding of basic geology and hydrodynamics.

reply to post by Uncle Gravity


Wow, why is this argument moronic Uncle "I don't bother actually explaining why I disagree with something"?

And you do realize that this thread is a bit more than a single post long, right? I came up with all sorts of other arguments, like genetic bottlenecking and how there would be a lot of evidence of it.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Yet another post that tries to argue plausibility without providing evidence, yay.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
The continents rest on huge plates.

Welcome to the world of scientific discoveries of the early 20th century.

Movement of these plates can cause changes in the level of the earth’s surface.

Indeed they can, we have all sorts of evidence for this.

In some places today, there are great underwater abysses more than six miles [more than 10 km] deep at the plate boundaries.

Yes, they're called subduction zones.

It is quite likely that—perhaps triggered by the Flood itself—the plates moved, the sea bottom sank, and the great trenches opened, allowing the water to drain off the land.

...you do realize that there would be massive amounts of physical evidence for this, right? The largest earthquake recorded measured a 9.5 on the Richter scale. That's basically the equivalent of 19,837 megatons of TNT, or nearly 400 times the largest explosion ever created by humanity.

Now, an event that would lower all of the sea floors? Well...I'm sure it would be a lot bigger.

To some extent the earth is still flooded.

Not really, no.

Seventy percent of it is covered by water and only 30 percent is dry land. Moreover, 75 percent of the earth’s fresh water is locked up in glaciers and polar ice caps. If all this ice were to melt, the sea level would rise much higher.

Um...you do realize that fresh water only accounts for 2.75% of the water on the Earth, right? In fact, the existence o

Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: “The essential differences between Biblical catastrophism [the Flood] and evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of geology but over the interpretations of those data. The interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and presuppositions of the individual student".

I'm sorry, but what the hell is "evolutionary uniformitarianism"? Uniformitarianism is the idea that scientific principle discovered in point A at time B can be applied at point C at time D with the same results so long as both are in the same circumstances.

And I Googled this guy and found nothing...well, I found a bunch of creationist websites. No published scientific work though.

Oh, and he's wrong. The world doesn't resemble what it should after a catastrophic global flood. The fossil record? Well, why the hell is it evolutionarily sorted? Where's the worldwide genetic bottleneck that should be present? Where's the global distribution of sediment in a single boundary?

And where is the evidence to back up his statement?

So madness your opinion of the interpretation of geology is just that.

No, it's an opinion based upon evidence. I'm not even a geologist and I know this guy is full of crap. Using the 'argument from authority' to segue into the 'all opinions are equal because they're just opinions' argument is crap. On my side I have decades of scientific work from millions of authors. I have so much evidence I couldn't read through all of it in a lifetime.

You...you have dumb arguments like "your opinion of the interpretation of geology is just that".

The water is still in the system, it never left.

Citation needed for the event the evidence that the land on the Earth shifted enough to allow for a hydrosphere of even a meter in depth, let alone a hydrosphere deep enough to drown all of the Earth's animals and allow for a massive wooden boat to float.

Another example of the redistribution of water is an iceberg.

And icebergs and glacial masses don't make up any significant amount of the world's overall water volume. They're the proverbial drop in the bucket.

Water redistribution within the form of ice is a really simple concept that we all learn about in elementary school.
I am surprised you suddenly don't understand it, when it comes to discussing the potential places the water went within the system.

I do understand such a concept, I just also understand science and mathematics beyond an elementary school level. There is simply not enough water within the system for a global flood to occur without a massive geologic shift that would surely leave massive amounts of evidence behind, especially considering the amount of energy it would release.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

...yes, there is quite a bit of water under the Earth's surface. In fact, we can quantify it....but it's still nowhere near enough to envelop the Earth in water. Hell, I'm not even taking into account absorption by soil...

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Of course we dismiss claims that have no basis in evidence and are easily refuted by the most basic concepts of hydrodynamics and plate tectonics We have absolutely no evidence of cataclysmic rearranging of continents, only gradual changes.

I do understand such a concept, I just also understand science and mathematics beyond an elementary school level. There is simply not enough water within the system for a global flood to occur without a massive geologic shift that would surely leave massive amounts of evidence behind, especially considering the amount of energy it would release.

You are slowly starting to come around Madness.

Isostasy (Greek ísos "equal", stásis "standstill") is a term used in geology to refer to the state of gravitational equilibrium between the earth's lithosphere and asthenosphere such that the tectonic plates "float" at an elevation which depends on their thickness and density. This concept is invoked to explain how different topographic heights can exist at the Earth's surface. When a certain area of lithosphere reaches the state of isostasy, it is said to be in isostatic equilibrium. Isostasy is not a process that upsets equilibrium, but rather one which restores it (a negative feedback). It is generally accepted that the earth is a dynamic system that responds to loads in many different ways. However, isostasy provides an important 'view' of the processes that are happening in areas that are experiencing vertical movement. 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. In the simplest example, isostasy is the principle of buoyancy where an object immersed in a liquid is buoyed with a force equal to the weight of the displaced liquid. On a geological scale, isostasy can be observed where the Earth's strong lithosphere exerts stress on the weaker asthenosphere which, over geological time flows laterally such that the load of the lithosphere is accommodated by height adjustments.

Isostasy

The sedimentary record For generations, geologists have been trying to explain the obvious cyclicity of sedimentary deposits observed everywhere we look. The prevailing theories hold that this cyclicity primarily represents the response of depositional processes to the rise and fall of sea level. In the rock record, geologists see times when sea level was astoundingly low alternating with times when sea level was much higher than today, and these anomalies often appear worldwide.

Current Sea Level Rise

Similar transgressive-regressive sequences are found on other continents, suggesting that worldwide sea level change caused the transgressions and regressions. These worldwide sea level changes were probably related to glaciations and/or seafloor spreading. During times of rapid seafloor spreading, mid-ocean ridge volcanism displaces sea water onto the continents. Cratonic sequences correspond to Vail curves of global sea level change. Vail curves are derived from seismic stratigraphic profiles, which permit tracing of unconformities across the craton and into thick continental margin sedimentary rocks. Vail curve of global sea level changes

Link

In the Late Jurassic and Cretaceous, epicontinental (or epeiric) seas flooded large areas of North America and Europe.

Sea Level Changes Worldwide sea level change is known as eustatic sea level change. Fluctuations in sea level are caused by things such as: 1. Changes in the size of the polar ice caps, due to climatic changes 1. Melting of ice caps leads to sea level rise (transgression). It has been calculated that complete melting of the Antarctic Ice Sheet would cause a sea level rise of 60 - 70 meters (200 feet). 2. Growth of ice caps leads to drop in sea level (regression). Calculations show that sea level was as much as 100 meters (300 feet) lower than at present at the height of the last Ice Age glaciation. Much of the continental shelf would have been exposed and dry. 2. Rate of seafloor spreading - During times of rapid seafloor spreading and submarine volcanism, the ocean ridge system is enlarged by the addition of lava, displacing water onto the edges of the continents (transgression). 3. Localized subsidence or uplift of the land - In the 8000 - 10,000 years since the melting of the last glacial ice sheet over North America, parts of Canada have risen by up to 300 meters due to isostatic uplift associated with removing the weight of the glacial ice sheet. Other areas are subsiding (or sinking), such as the Mississippi delta region. Cyclic rises and drops of sea level related to events along the mid-ocean ridges are known as Vail Cycles (named for Peter R. Vail who demonstrated their use in lithostratigraphic studies). In the past, eustatic sea level rise caused the flooding of vast areas of North America. These high sea level stands produced shallow inland seas that are referred to as epeiric or epicontinental seas.

Link

Marine transgression From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

A marine transgression is a geologic event during which sea level rises relative to the land and the shoreline moves toward higher ground, resulting in flooding. Transgressions can be caused either by the land sinking or the ocean basins filling with water (or decreasing in capacity). Transgressions and regressions may be caused by tectonic events such as orogenies, severe climate change such as ice ages or isostatic adjustments following removal of ice or sediment load. During the Cretaceous, seafloor spreading created a relatively shallow Atlantic basin at the expense of deeper Pacific basin. This reduced the world's ocean basin capacity and caused a rise in sea level worldwide. As a result of this sea level rise, the oceans transgressed completely across the central portion of North America and created the Western Interior Seaway from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Ocean. The opposite of transgression is regression, in which the sea level falls relative to the land and exposes former sea bottom. During the Pleistocene Ice Ages, so much water was removed from the oceans and stored on land as year-round glaciers that the ocean regressed 120 meters, exposing the Bering land bridge between Alaska and Asia. [edit]

Characteristic facies The sedimentary facies changes are indicative of transgressions and regressions and are often easily identified, because of the unique conditions required to deposit each type of sediment. For instance, coarse-grained clastics like sand are usually deposited in nearshore, high-energy environments; fine-grained sediments however, such as silt and carbonate muds, are deposited farther offshore, in deep, low-energy waters.[1] Thus, a transgression reveals itself in the sedimentary column when there is a change from nearshore facies (such as sandstone) to offshore ones (such as marl), from the oldest to the youngest rocks. A regression will feature the opposite pattern, with offshore facies changing to nearshore ones.[1] Regressions are less well-represented in the strata, as their upper layers are often marked by an erosional unconformity. These are both idealized scenarios; in practice identifying transgression or regressions can be more complicated. For instance, a regression may be indicated by a change from carbonates to shale only, or a transgression from sandstone to shale, and so on. Lateral changes in facies are also important; a well-marked transgression sequence in an area where an epeiric sea was deep may be only partial farther away, where the water was shallow. These are factors that should be considered when interpreting a given sedimentary column.

Link

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Does this help?

Accommodation The Accommodation Space Equation Over long time scales (105 - 108 years), sediment accumulation is strongly controlled by changes in eustatic sea level, tectonic subsidence rates, and climatic effects on the production of sediment. Several of these factors are linked to one another through the accommodation space equation. This balance of terms is most easily explained for marine sediments, but can be modified easily to include terrestrial sedimentation. A number of processes can cause the surface of the oceans to move up or down relative to the center of the earth. This distance from the sea surface to the center of the earth is eustatic sea level. In addition, the lithosphere can also move up or down relative to the center of the earth. Changes in the distance from some arbitrarily chosen reference horizon and the center of the earth are called uplift or subsidence. The distance between this reference horizon and the sea surface is called relative sea level or accommodation space. Relative Sea Level Acommmodation space can be filled with sediments or water. The distance between the sediment/water interface and the sea surface is known as water depth. The accommodation space not filled with water is filled with sediment. The rates of change of tectonic subsidence, eustatic sea level, sediment thickness and water depth are linked to one another through the accommodation space equation: T + E = S + W where T is the rate of tectonic subsidence, E is the rate of eustatic sea-level rise, S is the rate of sedimentation, and W is the rate of water depth increase (or deepening). These four variables are defined such that positive values correspond to tectonic subsidence and eustatic sea-level rise (factors that increase accommodation space) and sediment accumulation and water depth increase (factors that reflect filling of accommodation space). Reversing the signs of these variables accommodates tectonic uplift, eustatic sea-level fall, erosion, and shallowing of water depth, respectively. The accommodation space equation represents a simple volume balance, with the terms on the left controlling the amount of space that can be occupied by sediments or water and the terms on the right describing how much water or sediment fills the accommodation space. As written, the equation is an approximation. In reality, sediment thickness and water depth must be corrected for compaction of sediments and for the isostatic effects of newly deposited sediment. Through section measurement, changes in sediment thickness can be known, and through facies analysis, changes in water depth can be known or approximated. However, without outside information, the rates of eustatic sea-level change and tectonic subsidence cannot be isolated, nor can their effects be distinguished from one another for a single outcrop. In other words, there is no unique solution to this equation because it has two unknowns. Thus, it is impossible in most cases to ascribe water depth or sedimentation changes to eustasy or tectonics without having regional control or outside information.

Sequence Stratigraphy

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

In some places today, there are great underwater abysses more than six miles [more than 10 km] deep at the plate boundaries.


Yes, they're called subduction zones.

And you cannot prove they existed before the global flood. It has been estimated by some that water pressures alone were equal to “2 tons per square inch,”
What would that have done to the geology of the earth back then?

A summary of Dusty's last two posts:

"Look, here's some real science saying something happens to the Earth's crust! I don't have a clue what it means, but surely something in it indicates massive volumes of flood-waters could disappear from the face of the earth!"

Sorry, Dusty. You have to do better than that if you don't want to be laughed at. You need to explain how any geologic process you are referring to will effect the water level. We all know about tectonic plate movement. We all know there have been periodic falls in sea-level during ice-ages and rises when the ice melts. However tectonic plate movement does not affect global sea levels and global changes in sea-level are measured in metres, not kilometres.

reply to post by Kailassa

However tectonic plate movement does not affect global sea levels and global changes in sea-level are measured in metres, not kilometres.

Agreed, and 500 metres of water would cover a lot of land if spread out all across the earth.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Even if that happened, it would leave behind EVIDENCE such as sediment evidence...which is however NON-EXISTENT!!

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
And you cannot prove they existed before the global flood.

And you cannot prove the existence of the global flood.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Kailassa

 

However tectonic plate movement does not affect global sea levels and global changes in sea-level are measured in metres, not kilometres.

Agreed, and 500 metres of water would cover a lot of land if spread out all across the earth.

500 metres of water?

Blue_Jay, you cannot measure water by length, so your above statement is meaningless.

Would you like to try again, using a unit of volume, explaining what you are talking about, giving appropriate citations?


We have a saying in our household, in memory of a slightly dim-witted uncle, which we use to indicate a measurement or comparison is meaningless.
"Oranges only have half the vitamin C."
When Uncle John was asked, "half the vitamin C of what?" he blinked puzzledly , and repeated, "Oranges only have half the vitamin C," innocently believing he'd uttered a great truth.

reply to post by Kailassa

500 metres of water? Blue_Jay, you cannot measure water by length, so your above statement is meaningless.

Yet you said

global sea levels and global changes in sea-level are measured in metres, not kilometres.

I used the standard you set forth, now you are contradicting yourself. Why?