|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1330 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Where did the water go is a very simple question: It went to the ocean. There is no other place to go. The current vast amount of ocean water IS An IRREFUTABLE evidence.
Where did the water come from: This is a more complicate question. One important source is from the moisture in the atmosphere. Another one is from the earth's interior. Both sources are not likely to provide enough water for the global flood in today's environment of the earth. The ancient earth must be very different and this is a common understanding in the field of earth's sciences. One thing for us to consider: Where did the dominant amount of CO2 go in the early atmosphere of the earth? When did it disappear into ppm scale? Suddenly or gradually? Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1330 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
The early CO2 on earth partly got converted to carbohydrates in all the plant like on earth. A bunch more was captured to form limestone and dolomite, which make up a great deal of all the sedimentary rock in the crust. Gradually by either method. Millions to billions of years. If so, why doesn't similar process happen on Mars and Venus?And I guess you would suggest the Cambrian Exploration did not really happen, because it should be a gradual process too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1330 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
CO2 has varied a lot through Earth's history. It was 1800ppm in the Cretaceous I am not talking about ppm scale. I am talking about Possible >90% of CO2 in earth's early atmosphere. Do you know how is the high CO2 concentration in the air related to the global flood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1330 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Were the ocean basins not already full during "the flood"? Of course it was full. Only it was a much shallower basin. That is how the oceanic basins should be in the tectonics of early earth. (Do you know why "should" it be shallow?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1330 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
The main problem for YECs is that the actual world-wide flood is because it is still happening and is becoming worse nothing like how they imagine it, so they have to come up with all kinds of impossible nonsense to try to explain everything away. Absolutely not.The flood of a global size only happened ONCE in the history of the earth. Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given. Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1330 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
It is a simple physical model one called isostasy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1330 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
OK. The ocean was shallow in early earth because continent were thin. You put thinner piece of wood in water, the part submerged in water is thinner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1330 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Because the earth had no continent. Continent grows from 0% to 30% of the earth surface.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1330 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Have you heard that the original (very very early) earth was a molten globe? It was all made of lava all the way up to the very surface. Those lava solidified gradually into something like the current oceanic crustal rock (called basalt). And continent is made of a different rock called granite. There was no granite at the beginning.
Evidence? Well, the earth has only 30% of the surface covered with granitic material but has the other 70% covered with basaltic material. Take that as a good evidence? If not, what kind evidence you like to see? Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1330 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
No. I asked for evidence that there were no continents. And that would be at a time when there were people on earth. I never say that is possible. I am talking about geology, not about anything in the Bible. In fact, God makes the earth on Day 2, but make people on Day 6. You do have a good logic sense. The concept of time implied in the story of Noah's Flood is simply amazing. Do you believe Noah was 600 years old when the Flood took place? So, before you accept the possibility of the global flood, it is very hard for you also get tangled by the time scale. It is strongly advised that you separated these two main issues apart. I won't put them together in any argument with non-Christian. If you like to talk about the concept of time in Noah's Flood, make another thread. Then, we will NOT try to talk about the Flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1330 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
This topic is about the Bible Flood, so you can drop any argument that is not about the Bible Flood. It would be too much to involve Biblical message in the global flood for you. I don't think you would like it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1330 days) Posts: 332 Joined:
|
I will be glad to discuss the Bible with you in an appropriate thread. Anytime. I will be honored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1330 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
In context, science threads stick with evidence while Faith & Belief threads can be more philosophical and as my opponents say, a place where one is free (though foolish) to make things up. One can get away with it it Faith & Belief, but in a Science thread, one must stick with objective recorded evidence and not alternative theories from Walt Brown or one of the CRI group. Science: Data + Logic;Theology: God + Logic. Faith is only to God. The rest of theology CAN be explained by logic arguments. Systematic fiction will fail on logic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1330 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Faith & Belief threads can be more philosophical and as my opponents say, a place where one is free (though foolish) to make things up. One can get away with it it Faith & Belief, Absolutely not. If a person can not think in logic, which is in contrast to "thinking free", his argument can not go far, even in faith and belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1330 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
t involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. That is too serious about science. It does not take that much, although it could.As I said, science = data + logic. If one has data (about anything) and can use logic to analyze the data. That is a scientific work. Whatever conclusion drawn is scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024