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.
ONLY IF THE WATER RISING UP ON THE CONTINENTS was not rising up on the continents of earth. OR if you assume the continents before the Flood were near perfect planes.
YOU brought up laminar flow. You can't now run away from it.
So why is there shale and clay on the continents post Flood? Or are you of the opinion that there isn't?
Bring the moon close enough to accomplish the task. It will not only raise the size of the tidal bulge but raise the sea beds as well spilled enormous amounts of water onto the land (which will sink under the weight given even more height/depth to the flood.
I stick by it. The layer of water at ground level would be moving much slower than layers above it, thus minimal erosion.
Are they "everywhere' as scoffers insist? It seems to me that such deposits would be very fragile; undetectable in areas under cultivation or other development.
Here's the term you are looking for: subsidence and ISOSTACY.
You are attempting to leverage topics that are relatively well known (granted usually the moon probably doesn't have the ability to really raise the ocean crust sufficient to flood the continents to 8000 feet deep. But there are many known mechanisms to explain isostatic depression and uplift.
(See, there's so much more to GEOLOGY than simply coming to the table with some vague ideas.)
Are they "everywhere' as scoffers insist? It seems to me that such deposits would be very fragile; undetectable in areas under cultivation or other development.
No, it isn't.This is only important if one NEEDS Genesis 1:1 to be anything more than allegory.
No, it isn't.
I'll take whatever belief system you wish to employ: from Last Thursday to Ultraliteral.
Just tell me how old the earth is in Genesis 1:1.
My answer is simple and fast: It is as old as God created it.
But the fact that I'm getting so much run-around with so simple a question speaks volumes.
Your science truly short-circuits your understanding, does it not?
Maybe I should ask my mentally-challenged nephew how old it is?
He hasn't been brainwashed with science philosophy.
And that can ONLY happen if it is flowing over a flat plane. Any things it flows over would induce turbulence, certainly at the leading edge of the water flowing in.
Let's add some help from beneath the sea beds, like a few really hot spots causing giant lava domes. Between that and moon I don't think there would be much trouble flooding the earth.
Then answer it stupidly.Well it is a very stupid question,
I'm not saying the oceans cannot transgress onto the continents! They literally see it ALL THE TIME in the geologic record. Which is why geologists know kind of what you are proposing looks like on a small scale.
The only difference is you are asking them to use all available knowledge and assume that a similar process on a larger scale will produce something that is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, despite it being the same process (Transgressive sequence)
Then answer it stupidly.
I can tell you how old the Earth is. It is roughly 4.55 billion years old.Then don't take it literally, if that's not your bag.
Just tell me how old it is.
I covered that already. The flow over the surface of flat land would slow down as the water rises as there would be more friction. Obstacles that would cause turbulence would become structure that slows the flow of water as the water rises. The laminar flows would then occur at the top of the advancing water.
How could the flood recede? The ocean was already full of water. You are trying to claim that very deep water would not affect the surface and not explaining where the water came from or went to.They don't need to settle out at all but would be carried into the sea when the flood receded.
Should read "In the beginning, the Son of God created......" according to John 1Pretty short story, isn't it?
I've used a shorter one (In the beginning, God) to pwn those who arc & spark about Christians having different interpretations supposedly being the reason they don't believe in God.
Should read "In the beginning, the Son of God created......" according to John 1
Yup.I can't answer your question as asked. It was nonsensical.
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?