Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,427 Year: 3,684/9,624 Month: 555/974 Week: 168/276 Day: 8/34 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood- one explanation
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1010 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 91 of 129 (74070)
12-18-2003 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Minnemooseus
12-18-2003 1:06 AM


Re: Creationists
I was thinking about this last night after I posted. Actually I think I was dreaming about it. haha
Yes, sea level defines 'zero' elevation, but that's not an absolute number is it?
The way I see it, if all the ice melted and raised the sea level 300 feet. Sea level is still defined as zero, but it has a new... height??? The new sea level doesn't change the elevation of the land around it, BUT as Crash pointed out (and is exactly what I dreamt about last night), what about atmospheric pressure? Does it go up and down with sea level?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-18-2003 1:06 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Abshalom, posted 12-18-2003 10:37 AM roxrkool has replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1010 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 92 of 129 (74076)
12-18-2003 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by crashfrog
12-18-2003 8:36 AM


Thanks, Crash. I realized the air column thing during a dream last night. (You'd think I'd have more important and funner things to dream about.)
However, I wasn't sure that the air pressure was affected by sea level rise, it just made sense when I woke up this morning. It that fact?
Another question I had when I woke up this morning: isn't the oceanic bulge the result of gravitational forces between the Earth and Moon (and Sun?)? Which is what causes tides. I had the impression that JP's bulge was a centrifugal force thing.
I guess I need to hear more about this bulge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 12-18-2003 8:36 AM crashfrog has not replied

Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 129 (74081)
12-18-2003 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by roxrkool
12-18-2003 10:08 AM


Re: Creationists
Base sea level datum is established in North America courtesy of the National Geodetic Survey who may be accessed at: Home
If you own good, high accuracy GPS equipment, you can communicate with the government's satelite system and determine any point on earth within centimeters of its real horizontal and vertical location. The vertical location is based upon NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum) which has been adjusted relatively minutely and only for accuracy from the original standard USCGS (United States Coastal and Geodetic Survey) datum set back in the 1920's.
Unless I am mistaken, the total adjustment in the Midwest has amounted to only .18 meters in all that time. I don't know how that relates to sea level changes over the same period of time, but then maybe you may research it more closely using the link given above and other data available on the Internet.
Personally, I'm assuming that the base sea level datum will remain constant regardless of sea level changes due to ice cap degradation or accumulation simply because that would be the most practical way to measure the change in sea level in the first place.
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-18-2003]
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by roxrkool, posted 12-18-2003 10:08 AM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Abshalom, posted 12-18-2003 4:50 PM Abshalom has not replied
 Message 95 by roxrkool, posted 12-18-2003 5:16 PM Abshalom has replied

Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 129 (74149)
12-18-2003 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Abshalom
12-18-2003 10:37 AM


It's a Wacked-out Wacky World
So, having provided a link to a sane site in the previous post, how about this one: firststepsofpreparation for those of you who want to get ready for the pole-shifting, crust-spinning, plate-tilting, rockin', rollin', fast times at ridge raising high?
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Abshalom, posted 12-18-2003 10:37 AM Abshalom has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1010 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 95 of 129 (74150)
12-18-2003 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Abshalom
12-18-2003 10:37 AM


Re: Creationists
Yeah, everything is measured from Mean Sea Level. As for sea level changes, I believe we are currently in one (not sure), but it's still hard to notice at this point. Thanks for the links.
Does anyone happen to know how, or even if, changes in sea level affect the Earth's atmosphere? I haven't been able to find anything about that online. I know that air pressure is the result of the downward force of the atmosphere on the Earth, but no where does it say it is affected by changes in sea level.
I wonder if JP is going to come back...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Abshalom, posted 12-18-2003 10:37 AM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Abshalom, posted 12-18-2003 5:26 PM roxrkool has not replied
 Message 100 by gene90, posted 12-19-2003 11:22 AM roxrkool has not replied
 Message 101 by gene90, posted 12-19-2003 11:25 AM roxrkool has not replied
 Message 106 by FliesOnly, posted 12-19-2003 12:13 PM roxrkool has not replied

Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 129 (74151)
12-18-2003 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by roxrkool
12-18-2003 5:16 PM


Sea Level Effects on Climatic Changes
Rox:
Start here: http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/06/21/p15s1.htm
There is a huge, whirlpool-like down-draft current in the North Atlantic that powers the major currents that strongly influence climatic conditions especially along the coasts of Greenland, Iceland, and the British Isles. If this huge "whirlpool" powerdrive is shut down, the world's climate will feel the effects. There is some evidence that polar ice is melting at a pace that may clog the North Atlantic Current with more ice-melt than it can handle and threaten to shut the current down.
Put "North Atlantic Current" into your search engine for more info.
Peace.
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by roxrkool, posted 12-18-2003 5:16 PM roxrkool has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5701 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 97 of 129 (74158)
12-18-2003 6:55 PM


Why I don't worry about JP's claims
quote:
Hancock, Graham: Fingerprints Of The Gods. New York:Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1995, 578pp., $9.
Using archaeo-astronomy, geology, and computer analysis of ancient myths, the author presents convincing evidence that mankind is far older than we have previously believed. Ancient monuments from the Great Pyramid and Sphinx to the strange Andean ruins of Tiahuanaco and even Mexico's Temples of the Sun and Moon reveals an as-yet-unidentified civilization of remote antiquity with vast sophistication and technological advancement that had evolved a scientific knowledge superior even to our own present day advances.
More information on this 'theory' can be found:
http://www.thule.org/tiahuanaco.html
Interestingly, there is nothing in the geologic record to support the demise of this 'body'. There is no global layer of tektites that marks the onset of the Pleistocene ice ages. There is no iridium anomaly marking the onset of the Pleistocene ice ages.
Search for Tihuanaco and you'll find it interspersed with UFO's, Atlantis as well as JP's favorite strange event.
Tqnyc.org
Atlantisquest.com
or "Pole Shift" conspiracy pages
http://www.greatdreams.com/poleshift.htm
The supposed cause of the Tihuanaco 'mystery' is positively Velikovskian so while JP may deny the link, you can find references to the site on many Velikovsky pages.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6396/lightfall060.htm
20__‘
or how about this mention:
quote:
Some 35 years ago when I was building a background on ancient civilizations before 100,000 BC, I obtained a variety of info on Lake Titicaca and the Gateway to the Sun at, Tiahuanaco. I also was told that there were in mountains some distance from Puno, existed a Trans- dimensional Door or Gateway to Interdimensional "circuits" of all universal energies of the Central Universe
JM: Or maybe, just maybe it's not all that mysterious?
quote:
Abrupt climate change and Pre-Columbian cultural collapse
AU: Author
Brenner, Mark; Hodell, David A; Curtis, Jason H; Rosenmeier, Michael F; Bindford, Michael W; Abbott, Mark B
AF: Affiliation
University of Florida, Department of Geological Sciences, Gainesville, FL, United States (USA)
AF: Affiliation
University of Massachusetts, United States (USA)
MT: Monograph Title
Interhemispheric climate linkages
ED: Editor
Markgraf, Vera
AF: Affiliation
University of Colorado, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, Boulder, CO, United States (USA)
IB: ISBN
0124726704
PB: Publisher
Academic Press, San Diego, CA, United States (USA)
AB: Abstract
Holocene climate changes in the circum-Caribbean and Andean Altiplano are inferred by using paleolimnological methods. Paleoenvironmental data provide a climatic context in which the Maya (Yucatan Peninsula) and Tiwanaku (Bolivian-Peruvian Altiplano) cultures arose, persisted, and collapsed prior to European contact, ca. A.D. 1500. In the circum-Caribbean, the arid late Pleistocene period (>10,500 (super 14) C B.P., >10,470 B.C.) was followed by a relatively moist early to middle Holocene period (9000-4000 (super 14) C B.P., 8030-2490 B.C.), probably related to large differences between summer and winter insolation. The earliest Maya settlement dates to the Middle Preclassic period (1000-300 B.C.) and was associated with reduced seasonality and regional drying. In the northern part of the Yucatan Peninsula, the climate became even drier during the Classic period (A.D. 250-850). The driest episode of the middle to late Holocene occurred in the Maya lowlands at ca. A.D. 800-1000 and coincided with the Maya collapse, ca. A.D. 850. In contrast to the circum-Caribbean area, the Andean Altiplano was relatively wet in the late Pleistocene period and experienced low seasonality and dry conditions in the early and middle Holocene. The southern basin of Lake Titicaca (Lago Winaymarka), currently >40 m deep, displayed a low stage between ca. 7700 and 3600 (super 14) C B.P. (6470-1930 B.C.). Chiripa culture developed in the Titicaca watershed ca. 1500 B.C. (3210 (super 14) C B.P.), and was associated with greater seasonality, increased moisture availability, and rising lake level. Tiwanaku culture emerged ca. 400 B.C. (2400 (super 14) C B.P.) and depended on raised-field agricultural technology from A.D. 600 to 1150. A prolonged dry period began in the Altiplano at ca. A.D. 1100, prompting abandonment of raised fields and cultural decline. Climate changes in the Northern Hemisphere Maya lowlands and the Southern Hemisphere Andean Altiplano were out of phase on millennial timescales, when climate was apparently forced by shifts in seasonal insolation driven by the precession of the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch forcing). Shorter frequency climate changes in the Maya and Tiwanaku regions during the last approximately 3000 years may have been in phase and were driven by factors other than Milankovitch forcing. In both areas, population growth and cultural development occurred under favorable conditions for agriculture. Rapid cultural collapses in both regions were associated with protracted droughts. Paleoenvironmental data indicate that cultural development is limited by climatic thresholds and that abrupt, unpredictable climate changes can disrupt agricultural production and have devastating consequences for human populations.
cheers
joe meert

NeilUnreal
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 129 (74176)
12-18-2003 9:40 PM


quote:
a Trans- dimensional Door or Gateway
The other side comes out in the Haight. I know, I went through it during the Summer of Love.
-Neil

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Abshalom, posted 12-19-2003 10:04 AM NeilUnreal has not replied

Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 129 (74232)
12-19-2003 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by NeilUnreal
12-18-2003 9:40 PM


Gateway Re-entry
Neil:
Forgive my one year late, post-Woodstock visit to Haight, a tardiness that resulted in my Gateway re-entry October 31, 1969, a nightmare that has not ended to this day. If you can remember the route through the maze, please inform me as to whether I should exit the Large Door or the Small Door. It's been so long since the White Rabbit passed this way, I can no longer distinguish his paw prints.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by NeilUnreal, posted 12-18-2003 9:40 PM NeilUnreal has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3844 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 100 of 129 (74237)
12-19-2003 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by roxrkool
12-18-2003 5:16 PM


Re: Creationists
quote:
Does anyone happen to know how, or even if, changes in sea level affect the Earth's atmosphere? I haven't been able to find anything about that online. I know that air pressure is the result of the downward force of the atmosphere on the Earth, but no where does it say it is affected by changes in sea level.
I feel very smug in suggesting that any change in barometric pressure would be significantly less than driving from New Orleans to Denver. The only mechanism would be to raise the atmosphere by 66 meters over most of the planet which would cause a minor decrease in the gravitational force on the atmosphere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by roxrkool, posted 12-18-2003 5:16 PM roxrkool has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3844 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 101 of 129 (74238)
12-19-2003 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by roxrkool
12-18-2003 5:16 PM


Re: Creationists
Sorry admins, I made another double post. I might as well make the most of it by pointing out that there isn't really a 'whirlpool' in the North Atlantic, just a gentle sinking of surface water. Every winter the NA surface waters cool and reach their point of maximum density, at which point they sink and form a current. Same mechanism as seasonal 'turnovers' in temperate lakes, but much larger scale.
Freshwater however is less dense and there is concern that increased freshwater input out of melting Greenland icecaps could put a low-density layer near the surface which would shut down the current, doing nasty things to Europe (glaciation) and perhaps other parts of the globe. I've heard professors claim that adherents to this notion believe such effects could begin on timescales of as little as a decade. The water itself takes thousands of years to make one circuit *but* a cutoff of energy would be felt almost instantly, just as individual electrons in a current flow about as fast as molasses but current changes travel down the wire at nearly the speed of light.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-19-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by roxrkool, posted 12-18-2003 5:16 PM roxrkool has not replied

Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5636 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 102 of 129 (74242)
12-19-2003 11:33 AM


Creationist Article: Lunacy for the Simple Man
Noah's Floodwhat about all that water?
By Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, Ed. Don Batten
First published in The Revised & Expanded Answers Book
Chapter 12
Where did all the water come from for the Flood? Was there a water vapor canopy? How was Mount Everest covered with water? Where did the water go after the Flood? How could this have happened?
In telling us about the globe-covering Flood in the days of Noah, the Bible gives us much information about where the waters came from and where they went. The sources of the water are given in Genesis 7:11 as ‘the fountains of the great deep’ and the ‘windows of heaven.’
The fountains of the great deep
The ‘fountains of the great deep’ are mentioned before the ‘windows of heaven,’ indicating either relative importance or the order of events.
What are the ‘fountains of the great deep?’ This phrase is used only in Genesis 7:11. ‘Fountains of the deep’ is used in Genesis 8:2, where it clearly refers to the same thing, and Proverbs 8:28, where the precise meaning is not clear. ‘The great deep’ is used three other times: Isaiah 51:10, where it clearly refers to the ocean; Amos 7:4, where God's fire of judgment is said to dry up the great deep, probably the oceans; and Psalm 36:6, where it is used metaphorically of the depth of God's justice/judgment. ‘The deep’ is used more often, and usually refers to the oceans (e.g., Genesis 1:2; Job 38:30, 41:32; Psalm 42:7, 104:6; Isaiah 51:10, 63:13; Ezekiel 26:19; Jonah 2:3), but sometimes to subterranean sources of water (Ezekiel 31:4, 15). The Hebrew word (mayan) translated ‘fountains’ means ‘fountain, spring, well.’1
So, the ‘fountains of the great deep’ are probably oceanic or possibly subterranean sources of water. In the context of the Flood account, it could mean both.
If the fountains of the great deep were the major source of the waters, then they must have been a huge source of water. Some have suggested that when God made the dry land appear from under the waters on the third day of creation, some of the water that covered the earth became trapped underneath and within the dry land.2
Genesis 7:11 says that on the day the Flood began, there was a ‘breaking up’ of the fountains, which implies a release of the water, possibly through large fissures in the ground or in the sea floor. The waters that had been held back burst forth with catastrophic consequences.
There are many volcanic rocks interspersed between the fossil layers in the rock recordlayers that were obviously deposited during Noah's Flood. So it is quite plausible that these fountains of the great deep involved a series of volcanic eruptions with prodigious amounts of water bursting up through the ground. It is interesting that up to 70 percent or more of what comes out of volcanoes today is water, often in the form of steam.
In their catastrophic plate tectonics model for the Flood (see What about continental drift?), Austin et al. have proposed that at the onset of the Flood, the ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) due to an increase in temperature as horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated.3 This would spill the seawater onto the land and cause massive floodingperhaps what is aptly described as the breaking up of the ‘fountains of the great deep.’
The windows of heaven
The other source of the waters for Noah's Flood was ‘the windows of heaven.’ Genesis 7:12 says that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights continuously.
Genesis 2:5 tells us that there was no rain before man was created. Some have suggested that there was no rainfall anywhere on the earth until the time of the Flood. However, the Bible does not actually say this, so we should not be dogmatic.4
Some have argued that God's use of the rainbow as the sign of His covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:12-17) suggests that there were no rainbows, and therefore no clouds or rain, before the Flood. However, if rainbows (and clouds) existed before the Flood, this would not be the only time God used an existing thing as a special ‘new’ sign of a covenant (e.g., bread and wine in the Lord's Supper).
It is difficult to envisage a pre-flood water cycle without clouds and rain, as the sun's heat, even in that era, must have evaporated large volumes of surface waters which would have to have eventually condensed back into liquid water. And droplets of liquid water form clouds from which we get rain.
The expression ‘windows of heaven’ is used twice in reference to the flood (Genesis 7:11, 8:2). It is used only three times elsewhere in the Old Testament: twice in 2 Kings 7:2 and 19, referring to God's miraculous intervention in sending rain, and once in Malachi 3:10, where the phrase is used again of God intervening to pour out abundant blessings on his people. Clearly, in Genesis the expression suggests the extraordinary nature of the rainfall attending the flood. It is not a term applied to ordinary rainfall.
What about ‘the waters above’?
We are told in Genesis 1:6-8 that on the second day of creation God divided the waters that were on the earth from the waters that He placed above the earth when He made a ‘firmament’ (Hebrew: raqiya, meaning ‘expanse’) between those waters.5 Many have concluded that this ‘expanse’ was the atmosphere, because God placed the birds in the expanse, suggesting that the expanse includes the atmosphere where the birds fly. This would put these waters above the atmosphere.
However, Genesis 1:20, speaking of the creation of the birds, says (literally) ‘let the birds fly above the ground across the face of the expanse of the heavens.’6 This at least allows that ‘the expanse’ may include the space beyond the atmosphere.
Dr Russell Humphreys7 has argued that since Genesis 1:17 tells us that God put the sun, moon, and stars also ‘in the expanse of the heaven’ then the expanse must at least include interstellar space, and thus the waters above the expanse of Genesis 1:7 would be beyond the stars at the edge of the universe.8
However, prepositions (in, under, above, etc.) are somewhat flexible in Hebrew, as well as English. A submarine can be spoken of as both under and in the sea. Likewise, the waters could be above the expanse and in the expanse, so we should be careful no to draw too much from these expressions.
So what were these ‘waters above’? Some have said that they are simply the clouds. Others thought of them as a ‘water vapor canopy,’ implying a blanket of water vapor surrounding the earth.
A water vapor canopy?
Dr Joseph Dillow did much research into the idea of a blanket of water vapor surrounding the earth before the Flood.9 In a modification of the canopy theory, Dr Larry Vardiman suggested that much of the ‘waters above’ could have been stored in small ice particles distributed in equatorial rings around the earth similar to those around Venus.10
The Genesis 7:11 reference to the windows of heaven being opened has been interpreted as the collapse of such a water vapor canopy, which somehow became unstable and fell as rain. Volcanic eruptions associated with the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep could have thrown dust into the water vapor canopy, causing the water vapor to nucleate on the dust particles and make rain.
Dillow, Vardiman and others have suggested that the vapor canopy caused a greenhouse effect before the Flood with a pleasant subtropical-to-temperate climate all around the globe, even at the poles where today there is ice. This would have caused the growth of lush vegetation on the land all around the globe. The discovery of coal seams in Antarctica containing vegetation that is not now found growing at the poles, but which obviously grew under warmer conditions, was taken as support for these ideas.11
A vapor canopy would also affect the global wind systems. Also, the mountains were almost certainly not as high before the Flood as they are today, as we shall see. In today's world, the major winds and high mountain ranges are a very important part of the water cycle that brings rain to the continents. Before the flood, however, these factors would have caused the weather systems to be different.
Those interested in studying this further should consult Dillow's and Vardiman's works.
A major problem with the canopy theory
Vardiman12 recognized a major difficulty with the canopy theory. The best canopy model still gives an intolerably high temperature at the surface of the earth.
Rush and Vardiman have attempted a solution,13 but found that they had to drastically reduce the amount of water vapor in the canopy from a rain equivalent of 40 feet (12 meters) to only 20 inches (.5 meters). Further modeling suggested that a maximum of 2 meters (6.5 feet) of water could be held in such a canopy, even if all relevant factors were adjusted to the best possible values to maximize the amount of water stored.14 Such a reduced canopy would not significantly contribute to the 40 days and nights of rain at the beginning of the Flood.
Many creation scientists are now either abandoning the water vapor canopy model15 or no longer see any need for such a concept, particularly if other reasonable mechanisms could have supplied the rain.16 In the catastrophic plate tectonics model for the Flood,17 volcanic activity associated with the breaking up of the pre-Flood ocean floor would have created a linear geyser (like a wall) of superheated steam from the ocean, causing intense global rain.
Nevertheless, whatever the source or mechanism, the scriptural statement about the windows of heaven opening is an apt description of global torrential rain.
Where did the waters go?
The whole earth was covered with the floodwaters (see Chapter 10, Was the Flood global?), and the world that then existed was destroyed by the very waters out of which the land had originally emerged at God’s command (Gen. 1:9, 2 Pet. 3:5—6). But where did those waters go after the Flood?
There are a number of Scripture passages that identify the floodwaters with the present-day seas (Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8—11, note ‘waves’). If the waters are still here, why are the highest mountains not still covered with water, as they were in Noah’s day? Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9).18 They are the same waters!
Isaiah gives this same statement that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth (Isaiah 54:9). Clearly, what the Bible is telling us is that God altered the earth’s topography. New continental land-masses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basins were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents.
That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire earth’s surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earth’s surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles). We need to remember that about 70% of the earth’s surface is still covered by water. Quite clearly, then, the waters of Noah’s Flood are in today’s ocean basins.
A mechanism?
The catastrophic plate tectonics model (What about continental drift?) gives a mechanism for the deepening of the oceans and the rising of mountains at the end of the Flood.
As the new ocean floors cooled, they would have become denser and sunk, allowing water to flow off the continents. Movement of the water off the continents and into the oceans would have weighed down the ocean floor and lightened the continents, resulting in the further sinking of the ocean floor, as well as upward movement of the continents.19 The deepening of the ocean basins and the rising of the continents would have resulted in more water running off the land.
The collision of the tectonic plates would have pushed up mountain ranges also, especially towards the end of the Flood.
Could the water have covered Mount Everest?
Mt Everest is almost 9 km (5.5 miles) high. How, then, could the Flood have covered ‘all the high hills under the whole heaven’?
The Bible refers only to ‘high hills,’ and the mountains today were formed only towards the end of, and after, the Flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting. In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mt Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.
This uplift of the new continental land-masses from under the Flood waters would have meant that, as the mountains rose and the valleys sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the floodwaters on the land would also have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion and shaped the basic features of today’s Earth surface.
Thus it is not hard to envisage the rapid carving of the landscape features that we see on the earth today, including places such as the Grand Canyon of the USA. The present shape of Uluru (Ayers Rock), a sandstone monolith in central Australia, is the result of erosion, following tilting and uplift, of previously horizontal beds of water-laid sand. The feldspar-rich sand that makes up Uluru must have been deposited very quickly and recently. Long-distance transport of the sand would have caused the grains to be rounded and sorted, whereas they are jagged and unsorted. If they had sat accumulating slowly in a lake bed drying in the sun over eons of time, which is the story told in the geological display at the park center, the feldspar would have weathered into clay. Likewise, if Uluru had sat in the once-humid area of central Australia for millions of years, it would have weathered to clay.20 Similarly, the nearby Kata Tjuta (The Olgas) are composed of an unsorted mixture of large boulders, sand and mud, indicating that the material must have been transported and deposited very rapidly.
Receding floodwaters eroded the land, creating river valleys. This explains why rivers are often so much smaller than the valleys they flow in todaythey did not carve the valleys. The water flow that carved out the river valleys must have been far greater than the volume of water we see flowing in the rivers today. This is consistent with voluminous Flood waters draining off the emerging land surfaces at the close of Noah’s Flood, and flowing into the rapidly sinking, newly prepared, deep ocean basins.
Our understanding of how the Flood could have occurred is continually developing. Ideas come and go, but the fact of the Flood remains. Genesis clearly testifies to it, Jesus and the Apostles confirmed it, and there is abundant global geological evidence for a global watery cataclysm.
P.S. A vapor canopy holding more than 7 feet (two meters) of rain would cause the earth's surface to be intolerably hot, so a vapor canopy could not have been a significant source of the floodwaters.
Kata Tjuta in central Australia is composed of material which must have been deposited quickly by water.

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Coragyps, posted 12-19-2003 11:39 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 104 by Coragyps, posted 12-19-2003 11:45 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 756 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 103 of 129 (74243)
12-19-2003 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Itachi Uchiha
12-19-2003 11:33 AM


Re: Creationist Article: Lunacy for the Simple Man
Wowzers! They're giving up on the "vapor canopy!" Which gap will slam shut next?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-19-2003 11:33 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 756 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 104 of 129 (74244)
12-19-2003 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Itachi Uchiha
12-19-2003 11:33 AM


Re: Creationist Article: Lunacy for the Simple Man
Thus it is not hard to envisage the rapid carving of the landscape features that we see on the earth today, including places such as the Grand Canyon of the USA.
Unless you actually look into the deposition and downcutting of the rocks of the Grand Canyon, or of practically any other erosional landform on Earth. We know what "rapid carving" looks like from the Channeled Scablands in Washington State - and we know that that flood was local.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-19-2003 11:33 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5636 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 105 of 129 (74247)
12-19-2003 12:08 PM


an introductory article on the grand canyon from the creationist side
Grand Canyon
Monument to the world-wide Flood
For more than a century, evolutionary geologists have tried to explain how the Grand Canyon in the United States might have formed slowly over millions of years. Ideas that the Colorado River eroded the canyon, or that enlargement of streams and gullies caused it, have been shown to be improbable. Both these theories have a difficult time explaining where the products of tens of millions of years of river erosion went.
Earle E. Spamer said of the problem: 'The greatest of Grand Canyon's enigmas is the problem of how it was made. ... Grand Canyon has held tight to her secrets of origin and age.'1
Yet the canyon's rock strata can be interpreted well from a creationist and catastrophist view.
Creationist geologist Dr Steven Austin says:
'The crystalline-basement rocks exposed deep within the Canyon (schist, granite, and gneiss) represent some of earth's oldest rocks, probably from early in Creation Week. Tilted, deeply buried strata (the "Grand Canyon Supergroup") show evidence of catastrophic-marine sedimentation and tectonics associated with the formation of an ocean basin midway through Creation Week, and may include ocean deposits from the post-Creation, but pre-Flood world. The Canyon's characteristic horizontally stratified layers (the "Paleozoic Strata") are up to 4,000 feet thick [1,200 metres] and are understood to be broad sedimentary deposits in northern Arizona dating from the early part of Noah's Flood. Remnants of strata overlying the rim of Grand Canyon (the "Mesozoic Strata") are associated with a widespread erosion surface.'2
Dr Austin says that these features suggest tectonics, sedimentation, and erosion during the last half of the Flood year as the Colorado Plateau was lifted more than a mile above sea level.
'The catastrophic erosion of Grand Canyon (probably a result of drainage of lakes) was associated with river-terrace gravels, lake sediments, landslide deposits, and lava flows of the post-Flood period,' he says.3
Rather than being easily explained by evolutionists, the formation of the Grand Canyon is a problem for evolutionists, but fits well into the framework of the Bible.
------------------
BIG Bang=Bigger JOke

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-19-2003 12:42 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 109 by gene90, posted 12-19-2003 12:45 PM Itachi Uchiha has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024