Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains?

[AkiraYamato]

Let me get this straight.

You didn't know anyone still believes Noah's flood was global.

You aren't familiar with Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego in the burning, fiery furnace.

Yet when I say the Japanese came from Ham, you suddenly become knowledgeable on the subject?

I'm getting the feeling you're just here to ... well ... do what the others here do -- vent & ridicule us.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'd hate to think the Shinto hate us as well.

im not familiar with ham as well. i just say thats not part of japanese history and that we dont need middle eastern stuff in our society. we dont came from ham. our gods made many humans.

 

[createdtoworship]

Note I didn't say they weren't scientists.

I answered your question ast whether that would change a scientist's attitude toward a claim.

Scientists disagree with each other all the time.

And when a biologist suggests that a rock layer may be formed by a very non standard geologic process, the geologist will likely correct them.

When a physicist tells a biologist all about how evolution is a crock, the biologist may very well correct them.

Just being a "scientist" doesn't make one infallible on all topics.

Even scientists within the same discipline argue with each other! Only they sometimes aren't as nice to each other as people are on this thread.

it is also nice to see 3-4 paleantologists, and 2 geologists in that creationist list. FYI

 

[AV1611VET]

our gods made many humans.

Including Shoko Asahara?

 

[Lucy Stulz]

okay I have no idea what you are saying,

]

I assume he is talking about the "Enthalpy of vaporization".

Basically when you heat water to the boiling point in order to get it to go from water to steam you have to pump in a lot of extra energy. Let's say you are measuring the temperature of a pot of water on the stove and you are also measuring the energy put into the water as you heat it. From room temp to 100 deg C you would see the temp go up as you put more energy into the water from the burner. But at the boiling point you would see that as you add more energy the temperature stays the same!

What is happening is that in order to make it throught this phase change the energy is going into changing the liquid into a gas! The same thing happens when you melt ice. At 0C the temp stays the same as you add more energy until you have broken up all the crystal structure of the water and only then can the temp start to increase with more energy.

Now here is what the poster is likely referring to....when you CONDENSE vapor into liquid THIS SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT YOU HAVE TO PUT INTO THE WATER TO CHANGE IT FROM LIQUID TO VAPOR AT BOILING HAS TO COME BACK OUT AT CONDENSATION!

So condensing a vapor to a liquid will RELEASE energy in the form of heat.

Heat of vaporization is just the negative of heat of condensation.

Release energy into the surroundings it will heat up the surroundings.

That is what I assume he is referring to.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

it is also nice to see 3-4 paleantologists, and 2 geologists in that creationist list. FYI

Isn't it telling that there are so few of the geologists and paleontologists in such a huge list?

 

[createdtoworship]

first off the N American continent had a number of "epieric" seas transgress across it and cut it up etc.

Parts of the Ordovician had most of the area between the Appalachians and what is now the Rockies under water. Later in the Carboniferous an inland sea retreated and then came back later on.

Interesting thing about stuff like this is a feature called a "transgressive sequence", where the rocks show you the slow march of the water up onto the continent and a "regressive sequence" showing the trip back out. When you find a couple of these in one area you realize that this has happened a number of times.

To look at a few large extent formations and assume it is a single massive flood means you will likely have to explain another one at a DIFFERENT time horizon in the rock too. So how many Noachian floods do we have to account for?

Further some of these formations contain huge thick layers of SHALE, some "black shale" which means they formed in low energy environments over a long period of time.

Take some clay sometime and slurry it up in taaaaalll glass of water and look at how long it takes to settle out. The drive through a roadcut with 100' thick shale and think about it for a bit.

so basically one view says a global flood happened, resulting in several ocean patches, drainoffs, flood plains, etc in the following years. The other opinion is that these same drainoffs, floodplains were in fact caused by oceans?

So, in other words it's a stalemate. It's the same evidence but no one can prove that the oceans in your view were not a result of global flood runoff.

Am I correct?

I await your reply, thankyou for your insight (it is nice to dialogue with a pro- of sorts)

also, are you making these age assumptions by using the geologic column or what other mechanism do you date your rocks by?

 

[Herman Hedning]

I don't see how water falling from the atmosphere would be 1500 degree, let alone 800 degrees.

The first law of thermodynamics, that creationists are fond of quoting when trying to disprove evolution. When water vapor condenses into rain it releases heat. If we had enough of that to create the Noachic flood it would actually release a lot more heat than I initially stated. In the order of several thousand degrees. This is basic physics.

I could be missing something, but the only thing I could find that closely resembles your view is the green house affect because of the water canopy. While all life would thrive under a subtropical climate, some oceanic life would be sacrificed as waters would become warmer. I have a theory that compensates for this. It is still in the works and is not yet complete but I will give you what I have:

it's basically a much thicker water canopy than previously believed by creationists.

This canopy would actually be able to repel radiation from the sun off the top of the canopy, reducing green house affect on the globe.

I first came to this conclusion reading this article:

feel free to check it out
https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/Canopy.pdf

Fantastic. Creationists who actually try to think through the implications of a water canopy usually states that it could have held no more than 40 feet of water. Any more would have had very serious impacts on the climate on earth. It would have increased the atmospheric pressure by crazy amounts, at the same time increasing the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide to toxic levels. It would also have increased the temperature to levels where no life could survive. The climate would have been something like on Venus, only worse. Very unpleasant indeed.

 

[createdtoworship]

The first law of thermodynamics, that creationists are fond of quoting when trying to disprove evolution. When water vapor condenses into rain it releases heat. If we had enough of that to create the Noachic flood it would actually release a lot more heat than I initially stated. In the order of several thousand degrees. This is basic physics.



Fantastic. Creationists who actually try to think through the implications of a water canopy usually states that it could have held no more than 40 feet of water. Any more would have had very serious impacts on the climate on earth. It would have increased the atmospheric pressure by crazy amounts, at the same time increasing the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide to toxic levels. It would also have increased the temperature to levels where no life could survive. The climate would have been something like on Venus, only worse. Very unpleasant indeed.

yes the theory has been bashed in the last few decades, however ICR is trying to revive it.

again read this document and see if their calculations are accurate:

https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/Canopy.pdf

I do understand your view now, however it seems somehow the canopy attracts heat in the head and lower levels of the canopy. Not in the downfall as you suggest. How much heat? Who knows. I typically hold to a major refraction of sun radiation lessening the percentage of heat in the thicker layers. IF heat lessens the rest of the problems subside I believe. (the others you listed).

I will look at this doc again later today.

here is another one:

https://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_lv_r05/

 

[AkiraYamato]

Including Shoko Asahara?

yes. What do you think?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

okay I have no idea what you are saying,

not that you are wrong.

I don't see how water falling from the atmosphere would be 1500 degree, let alone 800 degrees.

Let me say first of all that I don't know what Herman Hedning's original idea was. But...if you have enough water vapour in the atmosphere to rain for 40 days and cover the earth etc, it will be holding a huge amount of energy. We're talking lots and lots. The energy required to evaporate the water in the first place is stored until the water coalesces as water droplets when it is released into the atmosphere as heat energy. You are correct about this being a part of the energy cycle in the greenhouse effect. But the circumstances we have in the biblical flood idea are much more extreme. You have saturated air holding a vast amount of water vapour containing a massive amount of potential thermal energy. You then release it it non-stop for 40 days to cover the earth in a mile of water or whatever it was...5 miles to cover Everest? Over 40 days that's about 9 yards or 8 metres of rain globally per hour. The air being saturated, it is reluctant to absorb more water, so the energy flow is pretty much one way. That is an awful lot of heat energy let loose in the atmosphere. If atmospheric temperature reached the boiling point of water, which shouldn't take long at that rate of heat energy release, when things would get really interesting. Basically the Biblical flood doesn't work.

I could be missing something, but the only thing I could find that closely resembles your view is the green house affect because of the water canopy. While all life would thrive under a subtropical climate, some oceanic life would be sacrificed as waters would become warmer. I have a theory that compensates for this. It is still in the works and is not yet complete but I will give you what I have:

it's basically a much thicker water canopy than previously believed by creationists.

This canopy would actually be able to repel radiation from the sun off the top of the canopy, reducing green house affect on the globe.

I first came to this conclusion reading this article:

feel free to check it out
https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/Canopy.pdf

I'm afraid the water canopy idea goes straight over my head. I can't see how it helps you at all.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

so basically one view says a global flood happened, resulting in several ocean patches, drainoffs, flood plains, etc in the following years. The other opinion is that these same drainoffs, floodplains were in fact caused by oceans?

So, in other words it's a stalemate. It's the same evidence but no one can prove that the oceans in your view were not a result of global flood runoff.

Am I correct?

it is anything but a stalemate.

The rocks we see in the mid continent US for example contain evidence of millions of years of deposition. See my earlier comments on the shales alone. In and among those are signs of the transgressions and regressions and later transgressions and regressions of seas. Deltas showing shorelines and a few lakes (non ocean water). We see evidence for MANY dramatic changes in the environment back and forth and so much evidence AGAINST a Young earth that in order to shoehorn all of this into one cataclysmic event and a couple thousand years means we will have to destroy almost everything we know about physics, chemistry, hydraulogy, and common sense.

I say common sense because the stuff we see HAPPENING TODAY results in structures just like what we see preserved in the ricks. Are we to then assume that all physical processes in the past must have run u der alarmingly different laws of physics but still wound p looking exactly like what we see forming in soft sediments today?

also, are you making these age assumptions by using the geologic column or what other mechanism do you date your rocks by?

most of what I am talking about here doesn't require dating per se. Just an appreciation for how sedimentary structures form. How long would it take to accumulate a 100' layer of tiny flat clay minerals? Etc.

However geologic dating is normally done using a variety of methods both absolute (ie radiological, varve, dendrochronological) and relative ( superposition and faunal succession etc).

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I assume he is talking about the "Enthalpy of vaporization".

Basically when you heat water to the boiling point in order to get it to go from water to steam you have to pump in a lot of extra energy. Let's say you are measuring the temperature of a pot of water on the stove and you are also measuring the energy put into the water as you heat it. From room temp to 100 deg C you would see the temp go up as you put more energy into the water from the burner. But at the boiling point you would see that as you add more energy the temperature stays the same!

What is happening is that in order to make it throught this phase change the energy is going into changing the liquid into a gas! The same thing happens when you melt ice. At 0C the temp stays the same as you add more energy until you have broken up all the crystal structure of the water and only then can the temp start to increase with more energy.

Now here is what the poster is likely referring to....when you CONDENSE vapor into liquid THIS SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT YOU HAVE TO PUT INTO THE WATER TO CHANGE IT FROM LIQUID TO VAPOR AT BOILING HAS TO COME BACK OUT AT CONDENSATION!

So condensing a vapor to a liquid will RELEASE energy in the form of heat.

Heat of vaporization is just the negative of heat of condensation.

Release energy into the surroundings it will heat up the surroundings.

That is what I assume he is referring to.

Yes, that is what I was referring to, but you explained it far better than me.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

The first law of thermodynamics, that creationists are fond of quoting when trying to disprove evolution. When water vapor condenses into rain it releases heat. If we had enough of that to create the Noachic flood it would actually release a lot more heat than I initially stated. In the order of several thousand degrees. This is basic physics.

Gosh, several thousand degrees! That would make life interesting on the ark.

 

[createdtoworship]

it is anything but a stalemate.

The rocks we see in the mid continent US for example contain evidence of millions of years of deposition. See my earlier comments on the shales alone. In and among those are signs of the transgressions and regressions and later transgressions and regressions of seas. Deltas showing shorelines and a few lakes (non ocean water). We see evidence for MANY dramatic changes in the environment back and forth and so much evidence AGAINST a Young earth that in order to shoehorn all of this into one cataclysmic event and a couple thousand years means we will have to destroy almost everything we know about physics, chemistry, hydraulogy, and common sense.

I say common sense because the stuff we see HAPPENING TODAY results in structures just like what we see preserved in the ricks. Are we to then assume that all physical processes in the past must have run u der alarmingly different laws of physics but still wound p looking exactly like what we see forming in soft sediments today?



most of what I am talking about here doesn't require dating per se. Just an appreciation for how sedimentary structures form. How long would it take to accumulate a 100' layer of tiny flat clay minerals? Etc.

However geologic dating is normally done using a variety of methods both absolute (ie radiological, varve, dendrochronological) and relative ( superposition and faunal succession etc).

okay, I see your point with clay minerals. Now see my point.

okay so your saying that for example the dinasaur graveyard in montana, a sedimentary layer a mile long with 10,000 duckbill dinasaur fossils in it, happened gradually of long periods of time!

there are many like this in US alone!

I have posts of fish giving birth (fossilized)

and fish eating other fish (fossilized in mouth!)

not long ages, but a lone cataclysmic event.

 

[Herman Hedning]

yes the theory has been bashed in the last few decades, however ICR is trying to revive it.

again read this document and see if their calculations are accurate:

https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/Canopy.pdf

A brief look at that file shows that ICR's calculations assume a much lower solar constant than today. The abstract says that "If appropriate conditions can be demonstrated which justify the assumption of a much lower solar constant than typically studied, these calculations could revive consideration of an early earth covered by a water vapor canopy."

I can not find any justification in the paper for believing the solar constant has been significantly lower at any point in earth's history, so this is all purely hypothetical. A bit like dad's "different past" ideas it would appear.

 

[AkiraYamato]

The amount of ignorance here shocks me...

You have fossils of fish giving birth? Well the mother died during giving birth and sunk down with the baby to the ground. Happenes quite often. Fossils of fish in mouth? You never owned an aquarium, right? Fish do choke to death sometimes.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

okay, I see your point with clay minerals. Now see my point.

okay so your saying that for example the dinasaur graveyard in montana, a sedimentary layer a mile long with 10,000 duckbill dinasaur fossils in it, happened gradually of long periods of time!

there are many like this in US alone!

I have posts of fish giving birth (fossilized)

and fish eating other fish (fossilized in mouth!)

not long ages, but a lone cataclysmic event.

At no point am I saying that catastrophes fon't occur. They obviously do. But let us look at the two examples you gave here. Were they from the same timeframe in the geologic record? Geologists can tell this. It is called correlation.

If they are NOT from the same geologic instant then they cannot be used to support a single global catastrophe.

Further finding a catastrophic event only tells you of one catastrophic event somewhere. That catastrophic events occur is not in debate. That one explains all the sed geology we see stretches the imagination to breaking. That one could be within human history and the ensuing cole thousand years could explain almost all of our sed strat geology is beyond breaking

 

[AkiraYamato]

Guys? Do you realize that you debate about a tale here? Do you serious bring a tale into science? Your country is doomed.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

At no point am I saying that catastrophes fon't occur. They obviously do. But let us look at the two examples you gave here. Were they from the same timeframe in the geologic record? Geologists can tell this. It is called correlation.

If they are NOT from the same geologic instant then they cannot be used to support a single global catastrophe.

Further finding a catastrophic event only tells you of one catastrophic event somewhere. That catastrophic events occur is not in debate. That one explains all the sed geology we see stretches the imagination to breaking. That one could be within human history and the ensuing cole thousand years could explain almost all of our sed strat geology is beyond breaking

All it takes is one anomaly, such as polystrate fossils, to call into question the whole geologic column. The California whale encased in diatomite is still unexplained by science but supports a massive and sudden flood event. Such anomalies are all over the place and either ignored by science of weakly explained away.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Guys? Do you realize that you debate about a tale here? Do you serious bring a tale into science? Your country is doomed.

Don't misunderstand. Most Americans don't believe the biblical account of supernatural events. Even most Christians accept the scientific evidence. It's only a small number of us die-hard believers that believe these stories.

That said there is enough evidence of a massive global flood to bring into question the whole science of evolutionary geology.