Extensive salt deposits falsify the worldwide flood

[dad]

is it not false that [BIBLE]Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.[/BIBLE]?

indeed it is... and this is the supposed Creator speaking... you would think he got something like that right... this does NOT prove the entire Bible false, but is sufficient to show that it is NOT infalliable

I must be missing something. What is wrong with the description of a corn of wheat falling into the ground, seeming to die, and yet springing forth great new life?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I am sure it was with heat down there that Walt figured the whole thing out to begin with, so I very much suspect your quick calculation has forgot something, as obviously he had many months if not years of thought go into his theory.

I don't think so. I was debating a YEC about this a few years ago and he told he emailed Brown about this question and Brown's only reply was that no one would debate him. It seems to me that if had an answer to this question he would have given it. It is also very revealing that Brown has never even published his nonsense in the ICR journal or one of the creationist "peer reviewed" journals. IMO he knows that it would be quickly rejected because it is so totally silly and he would not have the excuse that he was rejected because of evolutionist preconceptions. I have in fact also debated a YEC years ago on CARM who told us that he had tried get Brown to submit his work to one of the creationist journals and he wouldn't even consider it.

BTW if all that heat had been released a few thousand years ago the earth would still be hot. The only way for a planet to shed heat into space is by BB radiation and I don't think it would sufficient to have cooled the earth to point it is by now. Again, tell me how much of this hot water was released and I can do the calculation for you. I have done the calculation for the CPT model so I could easily repreat it for hydroplates.

Even so all that water shooting out from big cracks along the mid ocean ridges would not lead to the a flood that deposited the sedimentary record that we see including the layers of salt that we are talking about here. So in addition to being totally absurd Brown's hydroplate scenario doesn't help with the problem discussed here.

FB

 

[dad]

I have in fact also debated a YEC years ago on CARM who told us that he had tried get Brown to submit his work to one of the creationist journals and he wouldn't even consider it.

So you now respect creation journals, OK. So, it's not what something says, it's who it is published by.

Anyhow, whether the water was where Walt would have it or not, it was still there. And the plates did move. Only question is how much, how long ago. As I say, I only take bits from him.

BTW if all that heat had been released a few thousand years ago the earth would still be hot

All what heat? The only heat I meant is the heat we have. There are lots of hot spots, volcanoes, and heat around. Something must have produced it!

Again, tell me how much of this hot water was released and I can do the calculation for you.

First of all, why was it hot? Now it is hot near the surface, yes. We have had some plate movement, and other flood events that caused heat near the surface. But then? -Before all this? Yes, there was friction that caused a lot of spurting magma, and volcanic activity. (this would obscure the sun, cooling things as well, no?) So there no doubt was lots of hot water in places. But why add heat to water pre flood below the surface?

Even so all that water shooting out from big cracks along the mid ocean ridges

OK, so you're back at Walt's idea, I suppose I gave the impression I was buying the hydroplate farm there. What about some other way for water to surface? In a well, we create a vacuum, and pump it up. Could a changing atmosphere, or something have created some type of vacuum on a side of the earth, that drew it up from some of these fountains? Or could some plate movement have ruptured things, where in many cases it oozed up, rather than shot up? Or, if the water had salts, or chemicals in it, could this have altered heat calculations? Could even a previous atmosphere with, say double the oxygen, have had much of it liquify? (it does have moderately cryogenic properties). It seems the possibilities are legion.

would not lead to the a flood that deposited the sedimentary record that we see including the layers of salt that we are talking about here.

No a flood would not have deposited the sedimentary record, of course. It would have deposited some of it, and flood year events, such as uplift, etc, would have affected much of the pre flood sedimentary record.

 

[gluadys]

I must be missing something. What is wrong with the description of a corn of wheat falling into the ground, seeming to die, and yet springing forth great new life?

1. In reference to the seed, the text does not say "seeming to die"; it says "dies". So on that basis the statement is not true. Seeds do not produce new plants if they die.

2. In reference to Christ himself, to interpret "die" as "seeming to die" is heresy. The Christian doctrine of atonement requires that Jesus really die, not just seem to die.

So however you interpret the statement the conclusion is that it is either a literal error re: seeds or a theological heresy re: the death of Jesus.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So you now respect creation journals, OK. So, it's not what something says, it's who it is published by.

No, I am just saying he won't even try to get published in Journals that normally publish anything that agrees with their YEC model because he knows his stuff is so silly even they won't accept it. The stuff the ICR published is at least pseudo scientific. Walt doesn't even make it that far. Calling his work pseudo science is an insult to pseudo scientists everywhere.

Anyhow, whether the water was where Walt would have it or not, it was still there. And the plates did move. Only question is how much, how long ago. As I say, I only take bits from him.

Even taking bits is taking too much since what he posits is extreme nonsense.

All what heat? The only heat I meant is the heat we have. There are lots of hot spots, volcanoes, and heat around. Something must have produced it!

All the heat that would have been in "water" trapped 10 miles under the earth. The geothermal gradient exists and existed 10,000 and even 1 billion years ago whether you like it or not.

First of all, why was it hot? Now it is hot near the surface, yes. We have had some plate movement, and other flood events that caused heat near the surface. But then? -Before all this? Yes, there was friction that caused a lot of spurting magma, and volcanic activity. (this would obscure the sun, cooling things as well, no?) So there no doubt was lots of hot water in places. But why add heat to water pre flood below the surface?

First there was no flood so it makes no sense to speak of preflood and as I said the geothermal gradient is and was a fact. Walt can ignore it because people like you buy his books even though his model makes no sense.

OK, so you're back at Walt's idea, I suppose I gave the impression I was buying the hydroplate farm there. What about some other way for water to surface? In a well, we create a vacuum, and pump it up. Could a changing atmosphere, or something have created some type of vacuum on a side of the earth, that drew it up from some of these fountains? Or could some plate movement have ruptured things, where in many cases it oozed up, rather than shot up? Or, if the water had salts, or chemicals in it, could this have altered heat calculations? Could even a previous atmosphere with, say double the oxygen, have had much of it liquify? (it does have moderately cryogenic properties). It seems the possibilities are legion.

There is no way for the water to come up and there doesn't need to be because there never was a global flood. Salts would not alter the heat calculation signficantly but I guess they might help to sterilize the earth.

No a flood would not have deposited the sedimentary record, of course. It would have deposited some of it, and flood year events, such as uplift, etc, would have affected much of the pre flood sedimentary record.

Pre flood sedimentary record? In YEC mythology there was only about 1600 years between creation and the flood. Not much time to make a "sedimentary record". Or did God create the earth with a sedimentary record intact to make it look old? Back to Omphalos again I guess. One thing YECs consistently do in debates is proven over and over that Creation Science is an oxymoron.

BTW why did God create a world with that big layer of water 10 miles down? Did He know he was going to repent of his creation and murder everything and almost everyone with a global flood? Did He know He had blown it even at the time He started?

 

[dad]

BTW why did God create a world with that big layer of water 10 miles down?

I don't know if the water came from space, some hydrogen in the earth or atmosphere that was changed to H2O, from hundreds of miles down, or from under some mountain ranges or high areas that were above most of the rest of the world, but flooded it like an elevated reservoir. Ha.

Did He know he was going to repent of his creation and murder everything and almost everyone with a global flood? Did He know He had blown it even at the time He started?

I would be surprised if there were not a better purpose than transpired because of the sins of man. If the spiritual was not seperated or split from the physical world, everything would be different. Perhaps the inevitability came only after men listened to and obeyed the voice of the serpent.

Pre flood sedimentary record? In YEC mythology there was only about 1600 years between creation and the flood. Not much time to make a "sedimentary record".

Oh, heavens, no. Look at all the creatures that died in the cambrian! There was a new planet, warm climate, complete array of created life, different atmosphere, and a lot of other things. Thigs were in ideal conditions, by and large.

Or did God create the earth with a sedimentary record intact to make it look old?

I could never buy that.

One thing YECs consistently do in debates is proven over and over that Creation Science is an oxymoron.

No. Knowledge is on our side. modern so called physical only based, 'science' is very limited. Indeed the science of the box is both the moron, and the oxymoron here.

There is no way for the water to come up and there doesn't need to be because there never was a global flood. Salts would not alter the heat calculation signficantly but I guess they might help to sterilize the earth.

At least the part of the earth they got concentrated in. No way for water to come up? That is a curious statement. Perhaps I should not ask questions, but just accept your ststement is 'science'.

First there was no flood so it makes no sense to speak of preflood and as I said the geothermal gradient is and was a fact

I assume you mean it gets hotter as we go down more. As concerning the pre flood world, for all I know, it wasn't hot down there then. Now, yes, at least near earth's surface.

The geothermal gradient exists and existed 10,000 and even 1 billion years ago whether you like it or not.

Ha. This is theory. What proof can you offer?

Even taking bits is taking too much since what he posits is extreme nonsense

Not as extreme as the opposition. Besides, what if he was wrong, the continents still must of slid somewhat.

So you now respect creation journals, OK. So, it's not what something says, it's who it is published by.





No, I am just saying he won't even try to get published in Journals that normally publish anything that agrees with their YEC model because he knows his stuff is so silly even they won't accept it

Maybe you're right. Then again, maybe there are other reasons you know not of. But you are welcome to uninformed opinion.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

In all this hand waving there is still no explanation for the presence of layers of salt in the allegedly flood deposited sedimentary record.

FB

 

[dad]

1. In reference to the seed, the text does not say "seeming to die"; it says "dies". So on that basis the statement is not true. Seeds do not produce new plants if they die.

2. In reference to Christ himself, to interpret "die" as "seeming to die" is heresy. The Christian doctrine of atonement requires that Jesus really die, not just seem to die.

So however you interpret the statement the conclusion is that it is either a literal error re: seeds or a theological heresy re: the death of Jesus.

1 We would not bud forth into a new body if we really died either, But our bodies really die, so it seems like we do, for the physical only.
2 Jesus as well did die physically, but was ressurected.

The seed does die to it's old form, and is born again in a new form.

I think it is acceptable as a message to mankind. As for science nitpickers, they ought to be able to figure it out, if they have half a brain.

 

[dad]

In all this hand waving there is still no explanation for the presence of layers of salt in the allegedly flood deposited sedimentary record.

FB

Since I wasn't the alleger here, I'll leave it to those who feel stumped by it. I am pleased you did not attempt to answer why you thought a pre flood world had a hot bottom, however.
I'm off to internet seclusion for a week, so thanks for the replies, have a nice thread.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Since I wasn't the alleger here, I'll leave it to those who feel stumped by it. I am pleased you did not attempt to answer why you thought a pre flood world had a hot bottom, however.
I'm off to internet seclusion for a week, so thanks for the replies, have a nice thread.

Explaining such basic science to the likes of you gets a little tedious. It is virtually impossible to debate with someone who 1. Doesn't understand the laws of physics and 2. Is willing to claim changes in them to fit whatever ad hoc argument they need at the time.

FB

 

[grmorton]

I actually wasn't thinking about the theory you did that research on. I was looking at one that would be more similar to Walt Brown's. He, of course had a lot of water under there to reduce friction. Now I've heard some attempted refutations of his stuff as well. That is why I say more like his. He had the continents sliding for thousands of miles. There is a lot we do not know,

Let's stop right there, Dad, and correct this. There is a lot YOU don't know. Scientists collectively know enough to know that your drivel is false.

so forming a precise theory would be very difficult. But we know there was water under there.

We know no such thing. There is not free water filling caverns. There never was. If there ever was this situation,we should see some remnant areas where a particular kind of shear wave wont' travel. Shear waves can not go through water. But we see shear waves traveling through all parts of the earths crust.

We know that there was some uplift, I think in earth's history as well, such as in some mountain ranges. We are pretty sure the ancient atmosphere also was very different. Looking at these known quantities, it seems logical to me that if it all was within 6000 years, that there was likely some continental plate movement. How much? The first question that comes to me is, 'how much heat is there now on earth (near the surface 1-200 km)? 'How much water reduced friction and heat from other things would have been generated? For example, if the average continent moved say, 100km? How much stsrting heat was here to begin with, if any, and on what do we base this, exactly, and precisely?

When you finally grow up and cease doing childhood science, people might pay attention to you. YOu have nothing but a bunch of mumbles here. Do you have the slightest idea why even Isaac Newton would say that a massive cave under the continents is impossible?

(For example, some have said they think long ages of radioactive decay was largely responsible for the heat under there to stsrt with-but there was no long ages, so that's why I say exactly what?)

What power. you say there was no long ages and poof, there are no long ages. It must be wonderful to be as powerful as you.

Then, we need to ask if there were any counterbalancing cooling forces at work as well, that would have greatly affected things? Things ranging from Walt's claim that super pressured water would have some type of cooling effect (if you haven't heard that one, I can look it up, with his numbers, if you like)-to influences cosmic.

I suspect it is astral projection or crystal power which cooled things. If that isn't enough, I would suggest throwing in some astrology and a couple of leprechauns to boot. Self deception is the worst kind of deception.

I don't know, space is cold, in the rapid atmosphere change was there some things at work that may have cooled things? We may have had intense solar wind, or storms, or whatever, that, combined with a changing atmosphere may have affected things? (Not that some super vortexes were created in an inversion, and sucked up water into space, cooling things as well, like a giant ozone hole. Thus providing water for mars, and much of our immediate space. -ha)

Babel on my friend.

So, we wouldn't have much boiling water, and if evaporites were not evaporated by the great wind, then possibly we need to look to a pre flood explanation?

or how about just looking at a long long sequence of dry days--several billion of them? Oh yeah, that wouldn't work there have only been about 2,190,000 days in toto. Why didn't I think of that?

 

[grmorton]

So maybe you realize that his theory is so silly that he hasn’t even tried to publish it in creationist journals.

Frumious, I suspect that you are wrong here. He has, but the creationists keep rejecting it. It is my understanding that he has tried to publish it as technical articles at the International Conference on Creationism, but they wouldn't accept it as a technical article. All he could get was published in the non-technical section.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

[/font][/color]

Frumious, I suspect that you are wrong here. He has, but the creationists keep rejecting it. It is my understanding that he has tried to publish it as technical articles at the International Conference on Creationism, but they wouldn't accept it as a technical article. All he could get was published in the non-technical section.

Ok thanks. It was several years ago that a YEC on CARM who knew Brown told us that Brown wouldn't submit it. Perhaps Brown had already tried and didn't admit it or perhaps he has tried since then. In any case I stand corrected by someone who obviously knows more about the subject than I do.

Added in Edit: I guess I should have said he hasn't even been able to publish it in YEC Journals.

FB

 

[dad]

He had the continents sliding for thousands of miles. There is a lot we do not know,





Let's stop right there, Dad, and correct this. There is a lot YOU don't know. Scientists collectively know enough to know that your drivel is false

OK, Walt, I guess he's talking to you and your idea of thousands of miles of slide. He hasn't addressed my points, however.

But we know there was water under there.





We know no such thing.

Right, many of us do not know this, you are right. There are those that know, and those that can't prove otherwise.

If there ever was this situation,we should see some remnant areas where a particular kind of shear wave wont' travel. Shear waves can not go through water. But we see shear waves traveling through all parts of the earths crust.

So I think we may be onto something here, we are not now in a pre flood stage. Thanks for clearing that up.

When you finally grow up and cease doing childhood science, people might pay attention to you. YOu have nothing but a bunch of mumbles here. Do you have the slightest idea why even Isaac Newton would say that a massive cave under the continents is impossible?

Nice reply. Can't see how it much relates to the post you seem to think you were replying to, however! By the way, where was Isaac's massive cave, or anyone else's?

What power. you say there was no long ages and poof, there are no long ages. It must be wonderful to be as powerful as you.

There is power in being able to go outside the little box of physical only. Anyone can have it, or not.

I suspect it is astral projection or crystal power which cooled things. If that isn't enough, I would suggest throwing in some astrology and a couple of leprechauns to boot. Self deception is the worst kind of deception.

I wouldn't know, but you seem adept at the concept. Why even look for possible cooling effects, if all you want to do is boil mankind, and try to make the Almighty look ineapt?

or how about just looking at a long long sequence of dry days--several billion of them?

Right, and maybe granny gave a few extra blows when cooling her tea as well?

Oh yeah, that wouldn't work there have only been about 2,190,000 days in toto. Why didn't I think of that?

Sounds like it is not far from your mind?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So do you have an actual explanation for the massive layers of salt found sandwiched between sediementary layers that most YECs consider flood deposits or not. What are provided so far in no way explains them.

FB

 

[dad]

. It is virtually impossible to debate with someone who 1. Doesn't understand the laws of physics and 2. Is willing to claim changes in them to fit whatever ad hoc argument they need at the time.

1- Not limited to mere physics, no of course not, what kind of a lame creator would be like that? The bible clearly says He is spirit. The puny laws of physics clearly have an end, and are or were not applicable to earth's future of far past!
2- If you mean in the present, no, I think they are pretty applicable, and have not yet heard an answer to why the pre flood world bottom must have been hot. (Some seem to enjoy claiming they explained this already, but what they think was the explanation was either irrelevant, assumptive, or I didn't understand it, whatever it was, as they never will say)

 

[dad]

So do you have an actual explanation for the massive layers of salt found sandwiched between sediementary layers that most YECs consider flood deposits or not

Not yet, I was asking some questions to familiarize myself with your connundrum. I'm away from the net for awhile, so will look back later to review why the salt could not have been flood, and if so, come up with a doozy, maybe. Ha.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

1- Not limited to mere physics, no of course not, what kind of a lame creator would be like that? The bible clearly says He is spirit. The puny laws of physics clearly have an end, and are or were not applicable to earth's future of far past!

According to most YEC creation "scientists" the laws of physics not have changed since right after creation except for a few little things like magically accelerated radioactive decay to get runaway subduction going.

2- If you mean in the present, no, I think they are pretty applicable, and have not yet heard an answer to why the pre flood world bottom must have been hot. (Some seem to enjoy claiming they explained this already, but what they think was the explanation was either irrelevant, assumptive,

Was there a thread on that? Does anyone have a link? I would rather not get this discussion even farther afield.

or I didn't understand it,

Now that wouldn't surprise me a bit.

FB

 

[dad]

According to most YEC creation "scientists" the laws of physics not have changed since right after creation except for a few little things like magically accelerated radioactive decay to get runaway subduction going.

I say that the spiritual will be joined with the physical, (and was) resulting in a dfferent merged universe. Not only the decay process, but light was different.

or I didn't understand it,



Now that wouldn't surprise me a bit.

It's certainly possible, no one bats 100.

 

[MarkT]

the bible is not falsifiable? it is falsified... in this very thread... but the christians did not seem to think it was a very big deal that jesus (supposed creator) did not understand the very basic truth that a dead seed makes no life

The spirit or life is in the seed.

When Paul says, "What you sow doesn't come to life unless it dies", he's talking about the first death, the death of the physical form, the flesh. It ceases to exist. It sees corruption. There is a physical death.

But he says, what is sown is not what is raised.

For example, grass seed becomes grass, an acorn becomes an oak. The physical form the seed had ends and a new form of life begins. In that sense, one form has to end or die before the other form can begin.

So, here, Paul is using a metaphor to describe the change.

He goes on to say, what is sown perishable, a physical body in this case, is raised imperishable ie. a spiritual body.