|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dinosaurs 4500 years ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Robert Byers writes: Creationists accept, as is the history of the English-speaking people, the most intelligent people, the Bible has a legitamate source of truth of origins. You're right Robert. Many of them don't realize how difficult their job really is or what the odds really are? As it was said in the Body Book
quote: edited to add the quote from the Body Book that I left out. This message has been edited by jar, 07-24-2004 08:36 PM Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 751 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Dawg, you have been Birkelanded. Haha... so it seems. I'm not at all discouraged though. I know that it would be easy for anyone shoot my theories down since I am too ignorant to support them. Byers had a good point: "Also only a few geologists ever make new ideas mostly everyone just repeats what they read in books." Hopefully in the coming years I will be able to and have the time to stick with this and learn the PURE facts without automatically taking on the uniformitarian interpretations and assumptions as almost everyone else has.
The hydroplate theory is bunk. Hang around about 20 years or so and I bet 20 to 1 odds that I WILL prove this wrong (God-willing).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Haha... so it seems. I'm not at all discouraged though. I know that it would be easy for anyone shoot my theories down since I am too ignorant to support them.
Well it's not a theory then is it? it's some vague idea that you don't clearly understand yourself. Byers had a good point: "Also only a few geologists ever make new ideas mostly everyone just repeats what they read in books." Do you understand the scienctific process at all? It's a crap point, do you think that when I decide to write a paper, I start from scratch. Hopefully in the coming years I will be able to and have the time to stick with this and learn the PURE facts without automatically taking on the uniformitarian interpretations and assumptions as almost everyone else has. Meanless waffle, you plan to re-write the laws of physics? Hang around about 20 years or so and I bet 20 to 1 odds that I WILL prove this wrong (God-willing). Pure rubbish, it had the same level as "I will prove the earth is flat" . How do you plan to do this? You seems terminally ham-stringed by the fact that you are trying to make your finds match the bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wmscott Member (Idle past 6247 days) Posts: 580 From: Sussex, WI USA Joined: |
Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory seems to be the most popular of the young earth creation theories. While arguing for the deluge as a late glacial flooding event, I ended up arguing a number of times with people who believed in the Hydroplate theory. It is hard to argue against something when you only get bits and pieces of it second hand, so I picked up Walt Brown's latest book and read it, pure nonsense of course. I even called Walt Brown up on the phone and got nowhere with him, I pointed out several problems with his theory which he simply refused to believe. (He is very much in love with his idea that comets and meteoroids were all ejected from the earth at the time of the flood by the way.) So what I did was to take the math he had in his book and expand on it to show that what he was saying was of course impossible along with a few other simple examples of things his theory is unable to explain. I mailed it in a letter to Walt Brown and of course never got an answer, just to be fair, I later resent the information in a e-mail to him, also of course got no answer. So here are a few simple questions Walt Brown can't answer along with a mathematical example that shows why the Hydroplate is impossible. I apologise in advance for some of my math, I took the starting numbers from Walt Brown's book so he would have one less point to argue, and my math skills are rather basic which also goes to show how little it takes to disprove the Hydroplate theory.
Dear Walt Brown; Those numbers you wanted Walt. We had talked on the phone on Tuesday evening 8-19-03 about the heat released by the springs of the deep. Just the addition of about half the curent volume of ocean water to the oceans would have resulted in raising them to the boiling point, even if the preflood oceans were nearly frozen, 32 degree water plus an equal amount of water at even as low as 400 degrees will raise the flood waters to the boiling point and of course the fountains of the deep were proably much hotter. Of course the super heated water would have flashed into steam as soon as the pressure was reduced, however this would have resulted in the heat being delivered first into the atmosphere which would have in turn heated the oceans. Now I know you are saying that most of the heat was shot out into space and that frozen ice fell back to earth as hail and rain. Now if the Fountains of the deep were active for 40 days and the Mid-Atlantic ridge has a lenght of 46,000 miles and had a wall of super heated steam and water shooting out into space for 40 days, we could expect the following. Nearly all the water would have flashed into steam, Now a 46k mile long wall of steam at about 1000 degrees Fahrenheit exiting from under ten miles of rock, would vent out in all directions. Which would create a fast moving wall of super heated steam moving away from the mid oceanic ridge on both sides in opposite directions at near the speed of sound like from a steam explosion. The opening of the Fountains of the deep, would be much like as if someone had opened a large valve on a very high pressure steam boiler, much of the steam and water would shoot straight out, but due to the expansion of the steam a fair amount would spread to the sides of the stream like the high velocity gases from a gun barrel. As you undoubtable already know considering your background, when the hot gases exit a large gun behind the projectile, they flash out in nearly all directions. Any steam in the fountains of the deep would do the same. Since the water would be rapidly eroding the hydroplate above it, the exit nozzle sides would be cut back at an angle would increase the side spray. As the fountains cleared the surface, the steam would flash out to the sides and would create an expanding 'bubble' of steam much like the expanding shock wave of an explosion. This shock wave would travel like most powerful compressive waves travel at about mach 1. Due to the tremendous pressure of the fountains of the deep suppling the steam for this expansion being on going, this wall of expanding steam would cover the globe in a matter of hours. For example; how long would it take for a plane traveling at mach 1 from the nearest part of the mid oceanic ridge to reach the farthest point away from the ridge?-it would take only a few hours. This would result in earth's entire surface temperature rising to the boiling point and beyond, killing nearly all life almost at once over the entire planet. As the fountains continued to release steam into the atmosphere, the atmospheric pressure would of course increase as a vast volume of gas in the form of steam is injected into the atmosphere, think of a large gun if the gun flash lasted for forty days. There is also the matter of other gases which would be released as well as is seen in the release of fluids from great depths. Any steam rising above the atmosphere and falling back would create a blanket of steam and ice crystals which would add their weight to the atmosphere as well. Space is only cold in the shade, on the sunny side of the earth space is quite hot, water shot into space on the day light side of the planet would be turned into steam, not ice. You would have in effect a temporary canopy with all the problems that such would entail. A Venus like heating of the planet caused by a run away greenhouse effect would probably result, which if it trapped enough heat to be self-sustaining, would render the planet permanently uninhabitable. Your fountains of the deep being steam geysers blowing droplets of water as you alluded to in your MIT experiment with super heating distilled water until a sudden steam bubble blew the water to the ceiling, would work much better than a jet of water. With a possible height of only 17 miles a water jet stands no chance of clearing the atmosphere. The water hammer effect probably would not be large enough to supply the necessary energy since the flexible nature of crust above the camber resting on top of the water like a lid, would probably dampen any very large water hammer pressure surges anyway. To supply the necessary pressure for escape velocity, you need a pressure surge about 13 times the pressure present in the waters of the deep. A pressure of this magnitude would bulge and crack the overlaying plate rather than exiting from underneath the edge, which by the way works better for you since once the fountains crack has opened wide the water would shoot out at more of a horizontal angle where as a new crack near the edge would shoot vertical. The expansion effect of the water shooting in the vacuum of space, is only good for 14.7 psi which would only be equivalent to adding the weight of an another foot of rock which in comparison to ten miles is nothing. You didn't reveal your fantastic factor, so I can't discuss it until you reveal it. So while a pure water jet would rise to only 17 miles, a steam jet would rise much higher. Steam is far lighter than water, so the pressure of the fountains of the deep could support a far taller jet. Steam is lighter than air and so naturally tends to rise. With the expanding shock wall of steam racing away on both sides of the fountain of the deep, the back pressure would support the center of the steam jet creating an area of high pressure. This would result in a center portion shooting straight up under high pressure at high velocity. Water droplets carried aloft would be shot upward at enormous speeds like gun projectiles. At the surface of the Earth, if atmospheric resistance could be disregarded, escape velocity would be about 11.2 km (6.96 miles) per second. Using Torricelli's Theorem to calculate the velocity of an escaping ideal fluid results in a fountain speed for water only of 3044 feet per second, which is only 8.28% of escape velocity. So while such a jet could certainly lift large amounts of water high in the atmosphere which would rain out over the earth, launching material into space this way is not possible. But with steam the height of the 'h' in Torricelli's Theorem is much higher so the exit velocity is also much higher which supplies far more kinetic energy to the fountains. But with water having a critical point of 3,208 pisa would limit the effect to too small of a size to be effective in achieving escape velocity which is probably part of the reason why NASA doesn't use water or steam rockets to launch things into space. Little if any of the ejected material could have under the most favorable and improvable conditions may have somehow been blasted clear of the earth, the math in general rules it out, so it is clearly impossible for any large amount of water or rock to have been launched into space. In the first paragraph I used 1000 degrees as the temperature of the fountains of the deep because that would be about the temperature found at those depths today. The reason I did so is because the temperature profile of the inside of the earth did not change significantly at the flood. In your book you used the example of a high pressure shear friction to melt the earth at the time of the flood, which would not occur deep inside the earth, for under great pressure materials flow plastically. This flow generates heat of course but it is much less than shear friction. Then there is also the elasticity of the earth to consider as demonstrated by land tides. The heat generated by the flexing of the interior of the earth under the hydroplate theory would not be enough to melt the earth. The simple way to prove this mathematically is to look at the size of the energy input, the weight of material moved at the surface of the earth. We should be able to ignore the effects of the shifts in the hydroplates since they were floating on water and the pressure on the camber bottom would be the same the world over. Using the 46,000 mile long length of the Mid-Oceanic Ridge, a Hydroplate thickness of 10 miles and both sides where eroded back 400 miles. This means a total of 368 million cubic miles of rock was removed and transferred to other parts of the planet. The weight of the transferred basalt rock would be 4.858 x 10-18 power tons. Heat of impacting falling rock can be ignored since the heating effects would have been limited to the surface hydroplates since the water chamber below would have isolated the plates. We can use the weight of the transferred rock twice since it has been moved from one side of the balance of the buoyancy scale of the earth's surface to the other, like moving a weight from one side of a teeter-totter to the other. So using the figure of 9.716 x 10-18 tons descending 10 miles creates 3.3652 x 10-26 cals, which would melt a iron sphere at standard pressure and temperature with a radius of 758 km and of course there is the reduction in size due to the higher melting temperatures at greater pressures. However, only a small portion of the energy is available to be turned into heat, otherwise the earth would be too viscous for the movement to occur. So only a small percentage would be available as 'wasted' heat energy. For this example we will allow a generous 10%, or 3.365 x 10-25 cals which would melt an iron sphere of 352 km radius minus the allowance for the greater heat and pressure inside the earth, so the shifting of weight and pressures acting on the surface of the earth at the time of the flood is far to small to have supplied the energy necessary to have melted the inside of the earth. The heating of the earth due to the gravity potential of descending heavy elements inside the earth requires melting before the materials can separate and descend, the heat created by flexing the earth is not great enough to trigger this effect. So as I stated on the phone, the flexing of the earth you specified is not near large enough to melt the interior of the earth. This lack of energy input means that the earth has not experienced a recent internal heating event and just before the flood, the temperature profile with depth was pretty much the same as it is today. Which means that the fountains of the deep coming from a depth of 10 miles would have been about 1000 degrees Fahrenheit which as pointed out in the first paragraph, would have boiled the entire surface of the earth. Since this clearly did not happen at the time of the flood, there could not have been a very large scale release of water from great depths, to avoid over heating the earth's surface the flood waters had to come from sources with cooler temperatures. There was two more questions I didn't ask you on the phone, I was concerned about the cost and the time it was taking, so I will post them below. 3. Question- "On the Grand Canyon, if it was formed all at once by the draining of flood waters, how were the side canyons cut which drain small areas?."For ifthe side canyons were cut this way, we would see large scale flood erosion on the plan areas above and around the Canyon like what is seen in the Washington state scab lands. We should find large scale dry channels and water falls, and large plucked blocks and rocks carried by a large stream of fast moving water. Also, how could this sudden flood cut side canyons? Wouldn't there just be one massive canyon running from the former lake to the sea? Plus the grand canyon has some sharp bends in it, why would a massive super flood make turns, wouldn't it just flow over and cut through the obstructions? The issue of lava dams in the Grand Canyon was not mentioned ether, these dams formed after the canyon was already partly formed and each dammed the river until it was able to cut through the dam. These dams were massive and took a great deal of cutting for the water to get through, so when did these dams form? 4. I work in a large building that is covered in limestone, Niagara Limestone probably quarried from Lannon Wisconsin, and I have seen a number of fossils such as clams, sea bottom plants and many of the slabs have sea bottom surfaces. looking at these limestone slabs, you can make out an ancient sea floor. On some of them you can see the bottom surface with a long weed that fell over and is laying flat with maybe a clam. Such surfaces would take time to form, and there are many of them in the quarry deposits, they are used as natural planes to split the stones to make slabs. A trail I like to walk on goes by the edge of one of the quarries in Lannon and the limestone goes down for over 200 feet, the big trucks look like toys at the bottom and the limestone goes down deeper yet and all the way down through the whole deposit are found these fossil claims, plants and surface traces. To me these indicate that the limestone was deposited in tranquil waters over a very long period of time. Rapid formation of this deposit could have only occurred miraculously, no natural means described in the book or that I can think of, could have created this deposit in a short time period. How could these trace fossils of sea floors with plants and clams be formed rapidly? Wisconsin is a long way from the sea, so were did the sea plants and clams come from? The above is in a nut shell why the Hydroplane theory is impossible, I hope I have saved you from twenty years of wasted effort. There certainly was a recent global flood, I would suggest reading the book I have published "Solving The Mystery of The Biblical Flood" https://www1.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid... and you may also want to look over the two threads here on the board under the same title where many of the ideas in the book are debated at great length. Here is a link to the first post; http://EvC Forum: Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood -->EvC Forum: Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Nonsense. There are hundreds of geologists out there doing original work every day. Arguments on the outcrop are a required part of field geology. Have you or Byers ever been to a geological conference? The point is that science is conservative by nature and new ideas have to compete at a higher level in order to survive.
quote: Does that mean if God is not willing, then you don't have to pay up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
And that's only one light year. i'm confused. a light year is distance, not a duration. what the heck is this trying to say? it makes no sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2531 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
First, an interesting set of lectures notes that be downloaded is:
Non-Terrigenous Sediments and Rocks 2.5 MB In message 62, Hangdawg13 wrote: "Sorry to have dragged this off of dinosaurs. MaybeI can get back to there again somehow." Getting "off topic" of the stated discussion is always a problem with any exchange of posts on a message board. But this is an interesting type. jar stated: "We've been going over how limestone is formedand that it is formed through pretty normal biological action." Actually there are a variety processes, both organic and inorganic that can create carbonates. An important point is that each of these processes, because of the specific (chemical and physical) environmental conditions associated with them creates limestone that contains a characteristic set of sedimentary structures; fossils; mineralogy (calcite, aragonite, and/or dolomite); stable isotope; i.e. carbon and oxygen; composition; interlayering; and physical features. For example, limestone created either from the reworking from pre-existing deposit of limestone or the abrupt precipitation of carbonate would be completely different in these features from a limestone which accumulated in the tidal zone of a arid coastal plain called a "Sabkha". Because of different processes forming them, a layer of limestone, which accumulated in intertidal zone of a Sabkha differs from a layer of limestone, which accumulated in the subtidal zone of a Sabkha. By looking in detail at the mineralogy, sedimentary structures, fossils present, stable isotopes, and other features of a limestone bed, a person can, with great confidence, deduce the processes by which created it and physical environment in which a bed of limestone accumulated. Each process, organic and inorganic creates different types of particles and modifies, sorts, and deposits these particles of calcium carbonate in its own specific way. As a result, each of the different processes that create limestone leaves its own particular signature in the type of limestone produced. After determining the process involved in creating a set of limestone beds, they can be used to deduce with great certainty the environment, in which it accumulated. This is very much like determining the cause of an airplane crash. By carefully examining and piecing together the wreckage and studying the black boxes, a trained investigator can determine the way a plane came apart and features, i.e. burn patterns, explosive residue, burn patterns, fatigue breaks, impact patterns on engine, etc. These features will indicate the process, i.e. explosive device, missle, engine failure, structural failure, and so forth, which resulted in the plane crashing. As in case of interpreting the origin of limestone, the interpretation of process is based on the concept that a specific process acting a specific material yields a specific result. Thus, knowing the result and the material, the type and intensity of process can be inferred. From there, the ultimate cause, terrorist bomb, metal fatigue, empty fuel tank, pilot error, and so forth that caused the crash can be deduced. Of course if the wreckage is too badly mangled, analogous to limestone highly metamorphosed into marble, insufficient evidence might prevent an investigator coming to any firm conclusion as to what happend. jar stated: "There is relatively little evidence of this. AsCoragyps said, he thinks the corals have been chemically recombined, which is why limestone deposits are not made up of crushed up corals and clams." First, there wide variety of organisms, which produce calcium carbonate, either aragonite or calcite, shells in addition to clams and corals. These vary from large shells, i.e. mollusca (including clams), corals, bryozoans, brachipods, and so forth to microscopic animals; i.e. foraminifera, ostracods, coccoliths, pteropods, and so forth; algae; and bacteria (stromatolites). Depending on environmental conditions, i.e. water depth and salinity, any of these organisms can be abundant enough to form beds of shells that will eventually create beds of limestone. For example, the chalk, which is form of limestone, of the White Cliffs of Dover consist entirely of the trillions of pieces of the microscopic shells of coccoliths. (Contrary to what has been previously suggested this chalk doesn't have any silica cement in it. The only silica in it is concentrated in chert nodules). Finally, because of the chemical reactivity of calcium and magnesium carbonate, limestone and dolomite are subject to recrystallization of the original grains, which can very effectively mask, even obliterate, the original grains. The dolomitization of a limestone can also erase its primary features, i.e. sedimentary structures, fossils, clast types, and so forth. Also, aragonite is especially unstable and, thus, fossils composed of it are prone to being readily dissolved or recrystallized and making their presence difficult, often impossible to recognize. Recrystallization and metamorphism of limestone can erase the evidence needed to inferred its origin. However, the processes, which can cause this, create distinctive features of their own and it is quite clear from the mineralogy, texture, and other characteristics of the bed of limestone or dolomite that has happened. Hangdawg13 further wrote: "I'm arguing (though not very persuasively becauseI'm still ignorant and learning of the process) that limestone can and does form quickly through chemical not biological processes. Large limestone formations can and do occur when water chemistry and conditions are right. Such conditions might have been highly favorable during the flood." Even if it was physically possible to produce large "limestone formations" by this process, which it isn't, the limestone produced by this process would because of the specific chemical reactions and physicals involved have physical features characteristic of the processes, which formed it. It would be impossible for this specific mode of limestone formation to replicate the physical characteristics of limestone formed by other processes. For example, limestone created by the massive precipitation of large volumes of carbonate spontaneously from water wouldn't have the same characteristics of limestone formed in sabkha tidal flats and mudbanks. Because of the processes depositing carbonate in a sabkha environment, the resulting limestone deposits consist of meter-scale beds consisting of an upper alagal-laminated limestone, a middle bed fossiliferous peloidal grain-supported limestome; and a lower burrowed pelloidal mud-supported limestone. It is absolute impossible for massive precipitation from waters could duplicate these features in a limestone bed. Thus, hundreds of meters thick units, which contain meter-scale with identical or very similar features couldn't have accumulated Mr. Hangdawg13 proposes above as very different processes formed these beds. If a person deduces the processes needed to form these meter-scale beds, they find that they are identical to the processes observed by geologists in modern sabkha, including dolomitization, which can be observed happening in these tidal flats. In a similar vein, the processes that Mr. Hangdawg13 propose for the formation of limestone are different from the processes needed to create the features of other types of limestone, including oolitic grainstone, crinoidal packstone, rudist boundstone, and so forth. They cannot explain how the specific physical characteristics of these and many other types of limestone are created. In contrast, geologists can observe processes in modern environments creating these types of carbonate sediments with the features seen in ancient limestone in modern environments. TheThe fundamental problem is that limestone formed by the massive precipitation of carbonate from water as suggested above or by carbonate material eroded from an imaginary underground reservoir would have very specific features. In ancient limestone, geologists have found features, which neither of these processes could possibly produce. Instead they find features that are produced by and characteristic of processes, which have been observed in modern environments. In case of certain Precambrian limestone, the features have been connected to specific processes using laboratory experiments. Jay asked: "How did this product of living organisimsget down there to become filled with water?" Hangdawg13 replied: "Again, this is an assumption that all limestoneis the product of corals n such. BTW corals have to get their calcium from somewhere." Geologist make no such assumption. First, they know that both organic and inorganic processes can create carbonate sediments, which eventually are cemented into limestone. They know that **not** all limestone are biological in origin. Thus, this isn't an assumption of that conventional geologists make. This is a good point, because abrupt en mass precipitation of carbonate would create limestone that consists of homogeneous layer of carbonate mud. The mud would smother any organism and prevent their growth. Thus, such limestone would be devoid of any fossils. Also, the muddy water would prohibit the formation of microbial mats and stromatolites that are found in ancient limestones. In addition, a deep muddy bottom would preclude the formation of inorganic carbonate particles, i.e. oolites and grapestones, and they shouldn't be found in limestone created by the abrupt en mass precipitation of carbonates. It is true that various organisms get the calcium carbonate to make their shells from the water, in which they live. However, they can do it without the water containing enough calcium to be at the level it precipitate out. Hangdawg13 suggested: "It is possible that water, which was burned off ofhydrates in the crust, picked up calcium carbonate in the crust and deposited it along the walls of the chamber as it seeped into the chamber." If a person actually tried to construct a model of this using what is currently known about the structure and nature of the crust, they would find that such underground chambers belong to realm of popular fiction, i.e. "Journey to the Center of the Earth", not science. Basic rock mechanics would demonstrate that the existence of such chambers at depth within the Earth's crust is impossible. Water circulating through the crust does extract calcium from it. A lot of it is vented into the ocean where either organisms use it to build shells or inorganic processes precipitate carbonate particle that accumulate form carbonate deposits either identical or very similar in character to ancient limestones. Again, the intersted lurker, for more information can look at: Walker, R. G. and James, N. P., eds., 1992, Facies models-response to sea level change. Geological Association of Canada, St. John's, Newfoundland. Scholle, P. A., Bebout, D. G. & Moore, C. H., eds., 1983,Carbonate depositional environments. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir no. 33. Tucker, M. E. & Wright, V. P., 1990, Carbonate sedimentology.Blackwell, Oxford. Wilson, J. L., 1975, Carbonate facies in geologic history.Springer, New York. Yours, Bill
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 751 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Thank you for your in depth reply and I appreciate your taking the time to do such research.
I have only have a few questions and comments that I am writing down as they come to mind and you need not reply to all unless you feel I have made a legitimate point. If radioactive decay (assuming the 3 bill years of decay measured by today's clocks) happened within 1200 years before the flood, might this in combination with the shear shifting be enough to completely melt the earth's core? If this is the case the water would have been hot, but perhaps not quite as hot as the temperatures we see today at those depths. Also, would the release of this pressurized water act as a refrigerant as it turns to steam like a propane tank that gets frosty as the liquid becomes gas? I have also wondered about the Grand Canyon's side canyons in respect to the HP theory.Might it be possible that when the massive lakes overflowed their first dam and created the vermillion cliffs, that they formed temporary lake around the Grand Canyon area? As this water drained towards the low spot that is now the Grand Canyon the side canyons were cut. The deeper the cut, the faster the water flow, and the faster the erosian. The removal of material could have caused shifting in areas alowing lava to flow out. I realize that the rim of the grand canyon now sits higher than the surrounding landscape, so this uplift would have had to happen after the erosian began. There certainly was a recent global flood, I would suggest reading the book I have published "Solving The Mystery of The Biblical Flood" I will look into it. So you do believe in a recent global flood, or you believe that great local floods happened recently and globally?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SRO2  Inactive Member |
You should remember, "Global" is relative. What's "Global" now certainly wasn't "Global" a few hundred, or more importantly...a few thousand years ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 751 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Thank you for another in depth reply.
Getting "off topic" of the stated discussion is always a problem with any exchange of posts on a message board. But this is an interesting type. Well, since I'm now acting as a moderator for a few fora, I feel much more conscious of the rules, but I'll keep going with this. I realize that everything you have said makes a lot of sense. I would like to know your opinion on one other thing in relation to this. There is a liquefaction experiment that shows how a homogenous mixture of sediments can be sorted into alternating layers. Why do you think that given a mixture of all of the elements in a limestone formation that liquefaction could not produce alternating layers of the materials resembling yearly deposition and environmental changes? In other words, in your mind what rules out lare scale liquefaction as the cause of what we see today in such sedimentary layers?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
adioactive decay (assuming the 3 bill years of decay measured by today's clocks) happened within 1200 years before the flood, might this in combination with the shear shifting be enough to completely melt the earth's core?
I don't think it would just stop with the core.....let me check my calculations one time more, and I'll post what uranium decay alone would do to the crust. And I ignore what all that gamma radiation does to life on the crust....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Various themes being discussed - None any obvious relation to the topic theme.
closing down. Adminnemooseus Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to Change in Moderation? or too fast closure of threads |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024