Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Interesting. Do you know where this was published?
Too bad it still doesn't explain the fossil record, molecular clocks or biogeography. :-/
To me, this is lip stick on the collar of our scientific spouse.
Indeed it does not.
But, they found a whole new freakin' ocean!
Come on now, be honest. You didn't really read much of AiG's "answers" at all. Each on of the points that you brought up are answered.
... which raises another question about the creationist model. If plate tectonism didn't come into play until about the time of the Flood (a la John Baumgardner), and the water can only be vesseled underground via plate subduction, then how could the floodwaters ever have accumulated in "the fountains of the deep" before active tectonism?Not that new. If I have read the article correctly, this is actually recycled water. It was carried into the mantle as oceanic tectonic plates were subducted.
Not that new. If I have read the article correctly, this is actually recycled water. It was carried into the mantle as oceanic tectonic plates were subducted.
Previous predictions calculated that if a cold slab of the ocean floor were to sink thousands of miles into the Earth’s mantle, the hot temperatures would cause water stored inside the rock to evaporate out.
“That is exactly what we show here,” Wysession said. “Water inside the rock goes down with the sinking slab and it’s quite cold, but it heats up the deeper it goes, and the rock eventually becomes unstable and loses its water.”
The water then rises up into the overlying region, which becomes saturated with water [image]. “It would still look like solid rock to you,” Wysession told LiveScience. “You would have to put it in the lab to find the water in it.”
Bolding added
And, as the bolded sentence indicates, you couldn't fill a bucket with it. Or rather what would be in the bucket would be rock. It would take a laboratory analysis to find the water molecules in it.
The researchers estimate that up to 0.1 percent of the rock sinking down into the Earth’s mantle in that part of the world is water, which works out to about an Arctic Ocean’s worth of water.
What I see again here is creationists' lack of attention to detail. Did you just read the headline and not the full article?
... which raises another question about the creationist model. If plate tectonism didn't come into play until about the time of the Flood (a la John Baumgardner), and the water can only be vesseled underground via plate subduction, then how could the floodwaters ever have accumulated in "the fountains of the deep" before active tectonism?
Devil's in the details.
busterdog said:However, the idea that you would need a microscope to see it is not completely clear in reference to the water having precipitated out.
How surface water got back down there is a perhaps more perplexing, but as yet unanswered question.
Yes, but the water does not reach the surface of the earth as such.The mineral serpentine is 13% water, which is released with heat.
If the flood of Noah is real, and if it is a global event, not a local flood, then you would expect it to leave evidence.
In such a case, you would likely see the majority of the geologic column as representing the results of such a flood. Huge deposits spanning vast areas of land would be expected. You would see the different layers as representing different times in the flood, with varying hydrodeposition according to local conditions. You would see the fossils in the flood sorted by ecological positioning, motility and body characteristics as opposed to time. Huge areas where the fossil layers are supposedly "out of order" would not be any surprise or problem.
In other words, the same evidence used to point towards evolution is actually evidence that God caused a global flood, just as His revelation says. Same evidence - different interpretation.
Why don't you come back to the thread on hydrological sorting. Last time I checked, you still haven't come up with a method that shows sorting dinosaurs from chickens, even though there were dinosaurs the size of chickens. You also haven't shown how plants outran each other.
Hey, as a wise man once told me, "there is no limit on God's ability to design different critters."Thanks funny! I didn't know that plants could run. I've never seen a plant with legs. I would like to see that!
How is it possible that Noah fit two of ever species onto his ark and how big was it?The dinosaur section alone musta been as big as a modern ocean liner.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?