Scientific Noah's flood.

[SkyWriting]

You are incorrect.
Natural laws and supernatural laws are interchangeable.

Duordi

LOL!
How many offspring did Jesus have?
The law of nature states that an individual must have a number of offspring that are well suited for their environments and any misfits are eaten or die off from starvation before they reproduce. Only the offspring that are "fit" are "allowed" by this law to live and the rest must perish to leave behind resources for the best fit.
Only the fit shall inherit the earth. This is the one and only law of nature.
Have you a list of all God's laws that parallel this?

 

[Split Rock]

Go out to find the nearest road cut to your home. You may see a layer of shale, or sandstone, or limestone. They could be the very flood layer you are looking for. All you need to see it is the understanding of a global flood.

No answer, then? Our resident "Flood Geologist" has no answers.... just vague responses and hand waving. Maybe he will do better with the next post? Let's see...

Grand Canyon, Coconino Sandstone.
Grand Canyon, Hermit Shale.

There you go juve, two distinctively different types of sedimentary strata, one of sandstone and one of shale. How can the global flood create them?

The flood can certainly create one of them.

Wait, asked me to give you an example, then you would explain how the flood would create it. How does the flood create the, Coconino Sandstoneand,Hermit Shale. Saying it certainly can does not explain how the flood creates it.

Try again. Both are in the Grand Canyon which most of if not all creationist claim was created by a global flood. How does a flood create those two layers, or if you wish, just explain one of those layers.

How were those layers laid down? What makes them global flood layers?

I guess not.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Trying to cover a continent with water is like trying to make ice cubes sink in a glass partially full of water. The continents like the ice cube is floating. Adding water to the glass will just make the ice float higher.

Rock is more dense than water, so your analogy fails.

There are two reasons given for the continents submerging. The first and therefore the most important is that the fountains of the deep were broken up. The fountains of the deep are volcano's which do discharge water along with many other materials. As it turns out the water or gas portion of the ejection is very important.

Where is your (physical) evidence for these fountains? Also, volcanoes discharge only a very small component of water relative to magma. The amount of magma that would have to be erupted in order to get enough water to cover the Earth - or more precisely, the heat required to do so - would melt the planet.

The question we need to need to ask is what is the buoyancy of a vertical column through a continent and what is the buoyancy of a vertical column through the ocean? Both columns include a portion of the mantel layer in which they float.

The two columns contain a weight which is almost equal when the entire columns are considered even though the tip of the continent which is above seal level seems large to us.

Completely false. Continental crust is ~30km thick on average. Oceanic crust is ~8km thick. Average ocean depth is ~4km. Even considering that oceanic crust is more dense than continental crust, the two columns wouldn't be anywhere near the same mass.

If for some reason the column through a continent became heaver then a column through the ocean the continents would sink until submerged. Water need not be added to make this occur.

No, it would sink until it reached equilibrium. Like an iceberg.

According to verse 11 the ocean bottom is now broken allowing an average thickness of 400 foot of lava to be ejected into seawater. (The thickness is determined by scientific information given later). This kind of event causes Pumice which is lava which has cooled quickly after being ejected from a higher pressure area to a lower pressure area. Gases expand in the molten rock which cause bubbles in the rock formed. Before the bubbles can escape the rock hardens trapping the gas bubbles. The rocks have a specific gravity of about 0.6 which means they float having a lower specific gravity then water. One cubic foot of lava will cause five cubic foot of Pumice because Pumice is mostly hollow.

When the Pumice forms it will float to the oceans surface unless there are strong vertical upwards and downward currents or it is attached to the ocean floor.

When the Pumice reaches the surface wave motion will quickly grind the Pumice against itself into a fine silt which will fall to the ocean floor. Pumice is very brittle and structurally week compared to other rocks with thin walls of rock surrounding bubble structures.

Huge pumice 'island' floating in Pacific - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience | NBC News

Note that I did not say the ocean floor has not been elevated.

Our 400’ of lava has caused a 2,000’ elevation in sea level because of the enlarged volume of Pumice rock but all of the water column will not remain over the ocean. An elevated ocean will flood many of the continental areas.

You may want to check your science. Pumice is formed by the ejection of magma into the air, not the water. When volcanoes erupt under water, they form pillow lavas. The "pumice island" in your link was formed after the volcano broke the surface of the water.

"But," you say, "what about the gases in the magma?" Well, the pressure at the ocean floor is high enough that they are squeezed out of the magma as it erupts. So, no pumice, though you do get lots of bubbles.

And, given that the rest of your post depends on this pumice theory and I've just shown it to be invalid, there's no point in taking this any further.

 

[SkyWriting]

Trying to cover a continent with water is like trying to make ice cubes sink in a glass partially full of water. The continents like the ice cube is floating. Adding water to the glass will just make the ice float higher.

Perhaps cooled rock would float on Lava, but not water. In floods, floating islands of vegetation often do form even with trees growing on the island, but the base material is vegetation, not rock.

Flooding creates runaway islands on Lake Champlain - Times Union

 

[SkyWriting]

Rock is more dense than water, so your analogy fails.

Where is your (physical) evidence for these fountains?

There is no no need to imagine up any physical evidence.

“Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?”

 

[RocksInMyHead]

There is no no need to imagine up any physical evidence.

“Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?”

A bible verse does not count as physical evidence. I was asking for any physical features that the OP believed might represent a "Fountain of the Deep" or its deposits.

As for that verse, I would hypothesize that it was a spring, and not some "Fountain of the Deep." If it was, the Israelites surely would have drowned.

 

[SkyWriting]

A bible verse does not count as physical evidence. I was asking for any physical features that the OP believed might represent a "Fountain of the Deep" or its deposits.

As for that verse, I would hypothesize that it was a spring, and not some "Fountain of the Deep." If it was, the Israelites surely would have drowned.

Or they might all walk on top of it.

You may as well ask for physical evidence for every part of scripture, unless you are accepting some parts and doubting others.
Is that the case?

Creation of Water(Psalms 148:4,5)
Water covered the whole earth (Genesis 1:9)
Daily allowance of Water(Ezekiel 4:11)
City waterworks (2 Kings 20:20)
Vision of, by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 47:1-5)
Of separation (Numbers 19:2-22)
Libation of (1 Samuel 7:6)
Purified by Elisha (1 Kings 2:19-22)
Red Sea divided (Exodus 14:21,22)
The Jordan River (Joshua 3:14-17; 2 Kings 2:6-8,14)
Jesus walks upon (Matthew 14:25)
Changed to wine ( John 2:1-11)
Turned into blood (Revelation 16:3-5)
SYMBOLICAL (Isaiah 8:7; Revelation 8:11;12:15;16:4;17:1,15)
FIGURATIVE » Water of life ( John 4:14;7:37-39; Revelation 21:6;22:17)
FIGURATIVE » Water of affliction (2 Samuel 22:17; Psalms 69:1; Isaiah 30:20;43:2)
FIGURATIVE » Water of salvation (Isaiah 12:3;49:10;55:1; Ezekiel 36:25; John 4:10;7:38)
FIGURATIVE » Domestic love (Proverbs 5:15)
Irrigation with » See IRRIGATION
Miraculously supplied » To the Israelites (Exodus 17:1,6; Numbers 20:11)
Miraculously supplied » To Samson (Judges 15:19)
Miraculously supplied » To Jehoshaphat's army (2 Kings 3:16-20)

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Or they might all walk on top of it.

You may as well ask for physical evidence for every part of scripture, unless you are accepting some parts and doubting others.
Is that the case?

The point of this thread was to discuss Noah's flood scientifically. The OP made this claim, then immediately pre-supposed the existence of "Fountains of the Deep" without providing evidence for them. This is unscientific. I was merely trying to correct his oversight, especially given that he tries to provide scientific evidence for the rest of his claims.

Your list of items is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point of this thread was to discuss Noah's flood scientifically.

I have a feeling there is not going to be a fruitful scientific discussion of the Flood.

The Flood was a miracle from start to finish ... and beyond.

 

[Split Rock]

I have a feeling there is not going to be a fruitful scientific discussion of the Flood.

The Flood was a miracle from start to finish ... and beyond.

And please remember... the ark was not a ship... it was a containment vessel.

 

[AV1611VET]

And please remember... the ark was not a ship... it was a containment vessel.

That is correct.

 

[Promethean]

I have a feeling there is not going to be a fruitful scientific discussion of the Flood.

The Flood was a miracle from start to finish ... and beyond.

Other than to say that there is no scientific evidence for the flood.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Listening to a Creationist trying to Explain Science is like turning to The Wizards of Waverly Place to understand how Magic works.

Good for it's entertainment value but Leaves you feeling more Intellectually Exhausted then when you started.

 

[AV1611VET]

Other than to say that there is no scientific evidence for the flood.

Which I've been saying here for over six years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Listening to a Creationist trying to Explain Science is like turning to The Wizards of Waverly Place to understand how Magic works.

I'd say that's a poor comparison, but since it lets you Arab-phone "miracles" to "magic," I'm sure you think you made a point; and I no-doubt think you will get reinforcement from your peers here.

But for the record ... I was about to agree with you, until I saw the comparison to magic.

I would say that listening to a creationist trying to explain science ... unless he is a true scientist ... is like listening to someone who is desperate to speak outside of the realm of faith.

I can't, for the life of me, understand why Christians feel the need to [try to] support one single verse of Scripture with science.

 

[Split Rock]

I can't, for the life of me, understand why Christians feel the need to [try to] support one single verse of Scripture with science.

 

[DrkSdBls]

I'd say that's a poor comparison, but since it lets you Arab-phone "miracles" to "magic," I'm sure you think you made a point; and I no-doubt think you will get reinforcement from your peers here.

But for the record ... I was about to agree with you, until I saw the comparison to magic.

I would say that listening to a creationist trying to explain science ... unless he is a true scientist ... is like listening to someone who is desperate to speak outside of the realm of faith.

I can't, for the life of me, understand why Christians feel the need to [try to] support one single verse of Scripture with science.

Actually, this may be hard for you to understand but I wasn't actually Comparing Magic to Miracles.

I actually do not Discount the Possibility of Miracles, Or magic for that matter, but what I do disagree with people's notion of Concocting Fantastical and down-right Absurd delusions to try to explain them for what seams like no other reason then to convince themselves more then in the interest in knowing the truth.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I can't, for the life of me, understand why Christians feel the need to [try to] support one single verse of Scripture with science.

I believe we found something we can agree on, leave the science stuff for the scientists. When I have questions concerning scripture Ill ask a theologian.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, this may be hard for you to understand but I wasn't actually Comparing Magic to Miracles.

I actually do not Discount the Possibility of Miracles, Or magic for that matter, but what I do disagree with people's notion of Concocting Fantastical and down-right Absurd delusions to try to explain them for what seams like no other reason then to convince themselves more then in the interest in knowing the truth.

By way of example, does it bother you when people ask where the Flood water went?

Or does it bother you when someone makes up an answer as to where the Flood water went?

Or both?

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe we found something we can agree on, leave the science stuff for the scientists. When I have questions concerning scripture Ill ask a theologian.

I don't mind leaving science to scientists; but when ... scientists ... start discrediting the Bible, I don't mind speaking my mind.

Just like others don't like it when people use the Scriptures to discredit science.