Scientific proof of flood.

[gluadys]

I would never have known.

Pangaea wasn't the only supercontinent that existed in the past....IIRC there were about 4 or 5.

Yes, there was Rodinia and Gondwana before there was Pangea. Here's a good site for checking out the distribution of continents in past geologic ages. Possible future alignments are also included.

http://www.scotese.com/earth.htm

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

The sediments were probably laid down before the flood.

Until you identify which sediments are pre-, syn-, and post-flood, that statement carries little weight.

It's possible the earth was one continent before the flood.

The only way that's possible is if you place the date of the flood at ~220 million years ago, and as you know, humans were not around at that time.

Scientists even give the continent a name; "Pangea" and they say the earth began to rift apart at the end of the Triassic.

That is not the only time a supercontinental landmass has been assembled on our planet. However making such propositions does not help your position one bit.

But in the light of scripture I would have to favor a catastrophic event theory and not a gradual rift theory.

This is not supported by any evidence, and is disproved by all available evidence. It's safe to say that plate tectonics has occurred at a relatively gradual rate for millions of years. This is evidenced beyond reasonable doubt.

As for falsifications of catastrophic plate tectonism, there are three routes to take:

1. There is no viable mechanism for catastrophic plate tectonism:

Catastrophic Plate Tectonics would have ended life on earth.

2. There is evidence that the plates have moved slowly:

The Hawaiian Islands Revisited: Refutation of YEC/Catastrophic Plate Tectonism

3. A catastrophic explanation does not account for the current configuration of mountain ranges and does not account for the past configurations of plates as per paleomagnetic data:

Appalachian Mountains: Refutation of Catastrophic Plate Tectonism

It just doesn't fit the evidence. There simply was no flood and a catasrophic plate tectonic explanation does nto halp that cause.

I would propose a force that would create a mountain in a matter of days, the earth folding before your eyes, a force that would raise the sea bottom in places and rip the earth apart creating the continents and the oceans we see to day.

The legend of Atlantis seems to suggest a catastrophic event occured. Maybe it refers to the Biblical flood.

It could be North and South America are "Atlantis", where this refers to the area east of what we know as the pillars of Hercules that was once part of the European continent.

I see you are taking the making-stuff-up approach.

But I don't know. Just guessing.

At least you admit that much.

 

[Girl_4_God]

Why does he lie (thereby showing a disrespect for the ninth commandment)?

Then why does he so often blatantly lie?

Hovind's claims have been proved to be deliberate lies.

They are only lies if you belive them to be.

Jenny

 

[gluadys]

They are only lies if you belive them to be.

Jenny

So if you lie to your mother and she believes you, you haven't lied?

I'd like to get your mother's opinion on that.

 

[caravelair]

They are only lies if you belive them to be.

Jenny

lies are lies, regardless of what you believe. so you think it's justified for hovind to lie? you don't have a problem with him doing that?

 

[LittleNipper]

Until you identify which sediments are pre-, syn-, and post-flood, that statement carries little weight.



The only way that's possible is if you place the date of the flood at ~220 million years ago, and as you know, humans were not around at that time.



That is not the only time a supercontinental landmass has been assembled on our planet. However making such propositions does not help your position one bit.



This is not supported by any evidence, and is disproved by all available evidence. It's safe to say that plate tectonics has occurred at a relatively gradual rate for millions of years. This is evidenced beyond reasonable doubt.

As for falsifications of catastrophic plate tectonism, there are three routes to take:

1. There is no viable mechanism for catastrophic plate tectonism:

Catastrophic Plate Tectonics would have ended life on earth.

2. There is evidence that the plates have moved slowly:

The Hawaiian Islands Revisited: Refutation of YEC/Catastrophic Plate Tectonism

3. A catastrophic explanation does not account for the current configuration of mountain ranges and does not account for the past configurations of plates as per paleomagnetic data:

Appalachian Mountains: Refutation of Catastrophic Plate Tectonism

It just doesn't fit the evidence. There simply was no flood and a catasrophic plate tectonic explanation does nto halp that cause.



I see you are taking the making-stuff-up approach.



At least you admit that much.

The above is all reasoned from a godless point of view. I feel strongly that plate tectonics has occured at a variety of different speeds at different times. All we can do is look around at what we think we see. What we see is not always the way it was or is for that matter.

I am reminded that in Genesis 10:25 Peleg the son of Eber was so named because in his day (Peleg) the earth was divided. Peleg is several generations removed from Shem. If you cannot reason that GOD accomplished things in HIS own way in a variety of ways that outshine evolution, then I would have to question how commited you are to GOD's will, power, and creativity.

 

[corvus_corax]

They are only lies if you belive them to be.

Jenny

The following are all lies, whether one believes them to be or not.
"What do HIV, West Nile Fever, Gulf war syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis, Wegener's disease, Parkinson's disease, Crohn's colitis, Type I diabetes, and collagen-vascular diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and Alzheimer's have in common? These plagues were all developed as a joint effort by the money masters and governments of the world under the guise of biowarfare research. "

"Hey, did you know the word 'universe' comes from two Latin words? Uni means single and verse means a spoken sentence."

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless"


To say that they are not lies (or at the very least, completely ignorant statements) is to willingly and eagerly turn a blind eye to Hovind's lying tendencies.
I would implore you to look at Hovind and his statements as critically as you look at evolution.

 

[gluadys]

The above is all reasoned from a godless point of view. I feel strongly that plate tectonics has occured at a variety of different speeds at different times. All we can do is look around at what we think we see. What we see is not always the way it was or is for that matter.

You "feel strongly that..."? What an intriguing way to do science.

I am reminded that in Genesis 10:25 Peleg the son of Eber was so named because in his day (Peleg) the earth was divided. Peleg is several generations removed from Shem. If you cannot reason that GOD accomplished things in HIS own way in a variety of ways that outshine evolution, then I would have to question how commited you are to GOD's will, power, and creativity.

I see you are into anachronistic interpretation.

The person who wrote that genealogy knew nothing of plate tectonics. So what do you think he meant when he wrote "Peleg"?

The apostles knew nothing of plate tectonics. How did they interpret this verse?

The rabbis who gave us the Talmud and meditated and argued over every letter of scripture knew nothing of plate tectonics. What did they say this verse meant?

The giants of medieval and reformed theology knew nothing of plate tectonics. What did they say this verse meant?

Is it not possible that they could be more right than you?



Now if you actually look at Gen. 10:25 all it says is that Eber was the father of Peleg. It gives actually no reason at all for the name. It does not say he was named Peleg because the earth was divided. Nor does it say he was named after the division of the people due to the confusion of language at the tower of Babel--another common interpretation. It could be either of these reasons, or it could be for another reason entirely that has been lost to human memory. It could be for a family reason, not one that affected the whole world at all.

Is it really so hard to say we simply don't know why Peleg was named Peleg?

Any reason at all that we dream up is sheer speculation with no scriptural support whatsoever.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

They are only lies if you belive them to be.

Jenny

They are lies regardless of what anyone chooses to believe.

Would you like to explain the fact that Hovind thinks geologists made paleogeographic maps by shrinking continents to force them to fit even though that is obviously false, as was shown in that thread?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

The above is all reasoned from a godless point of view.

It is reasoned from a scientific point of view. It is valid whether a god exists or not. It seems like your only objection is emotional and does not take into account evidence.

I feel strongly that plate tectonics has occured at a variety of different speeds at different times. All we can do is look around at what we think we see. What we see is not always the way it was or is for that matter.

Feeling strongly about something does not make it so.

The fact is, we do look around and what we see demonstrates conclusively that what you want to be true is not true.

I am reminded that in Genesis 10:25 Peleg the son of Eber was so named because in his day (Peleg) the earth was divided. Peleg is several generations removed from Shem. If you cannot reason that GOD accomplished things in HIS own way in a variety of ways that outshine evolution, then I would have to question how commited you are to GOD's will, power, and creativity.

This has nothing to do with evolution. It has everything to do with the evidence that proves what you want to be true to actually be false.

 

[LittleNipper]

It is reasoned from a scientific point of view. It is valid whether a god exists or not. It seems like your only objection is emotional and does not take into account evidence.



Feeling strongly about something does not make it so.

The fact is, we do look around and what we see demonstrates conclusively that what you want to be true is not true.



This has nothing to do with evolution. It has everything to do with the evidence that proves what you want to be true to actually be false.

ANY calculations that misses any data cannot and will not provide a correct answer. ANY calculations that ignore the GOD factor are doomed from their conception.

 

[caravelair]

ANY calculations that ignore the GOD factor are doomed from their conception.

so like, when we calculate the orbit time of a planet, we should include god in the calculations somehow? how on earth would we do that? why would this have any effect on our answer?

 

[Blackmarch]

ANY calculations that misses any data cannot and will not provide a correct answer. ANY calculations that ignore the GOD factor are doomed from their conception.

Well considering that physics, matter, and etc.. were set in place by God it's kind of hard to totally leave him out of the equation.

 

[h2whoa]

ANY calculations that ignore the GOD factor are doomed from their conception.

No.

2 leaves + 5 leaves = 7 leaves.

2 leaves + 5 leaves + God = 7 leaves + God

For finding out how many leaves there are, both equations are good.

h2

 

[corvus_corax]

ANY calculations that misses any data cannot and will not provide a correct answer. ANY calculations that ignore the GOD factor are doomed from their conception.

​

 

[Electric Skeptic]

ANY calculations that misses any data cannot and will not provide a correct answer. ANY calculations that ignore the GOD factor are doomed from their conception.

So...

2 + 2 = 4

Is not correct, because God is not included in the equation?

 

[corvus_corax]

So...

2 + 2 = 4

Is not correct, because God is not included in the equation?

You didnt take into consideration the GOD FACTOR....
2+2=4 is doomed, DOOMED I tell you!

 

[duordi]

Until you identify which sediments are pre-, syn-, and post-flood, that statement carries little weight.



The only way that's possible is if you place the date of the flood at ~220 million years ago, and as you know, humans were not around at that time.



That is not the only time a supercontinental landmass has been assembled on our planet. However making such propositions does not help your position one bit.



This is not supported by any evidence, and is disproved by all available evidence. It's safe to say that plate tectonics has occurred at a relatively gradual rate for millions of years. This is evidenced beyond reasonable doubt.

As for falsifications of catastrophic plate tectonism, there are three routes to take:

1. There is no viable mechanism for catastrophic plate tectonism:

Catastrophic Plate Tectonics would have ended life on earth.

2. There is evidence that the plates have moved slowly:

The Hawaiian Islands Revisited: Refutation of YEC/Catastrophic Plate Tectonism

3. A catastrophic explanation does not account for the current configuration of mountain ranges and does not account for the past configurations of plates as per paleomagnetic data:

Appalachian Mountains: Refutation of Catastrophic Plate Tectonism

It just doesn't fit the evidence. There simply was no flood and a catasrophic plate tectonic explanation does nto halp that cause.



I see you are taking the making-stuff-up approach.



At least you admit that much.

It is reasoned from a scientific point of view. It is valid whether a god exists or not. It seems like your only objection is emotional and does not take into account evidence.

Feeling strongly about something does not make it so.

The fact is, we do look around and what we see demonstrates conclusively that what you want to be true is not true.

This has nothing to do with evolution. It has everything to do with the evidence that proves what you want to be true to actually be false.

There is evidence against the floating plate theory.

If the plates floated around causing tropical fossil ferns to form under the ice caps on the poles it would stand to reason that the equator areas would have glacial conditions in the fossil record.

This is not the case.

The theory that the Earth was once all tropical, and water was added to the surface causing the continents to float and changing the weather at the poles fits the geological record better.


The water run off condition also explains the shape of the continents.

The size of the continents would be determined by the time required for the water to run to a low area. The slower the continents rose the larger the continent would be as the water has more time to travel. It should be expected that similar conditions of the stiffness of the Earth’’s surface and water run off times would cause a similar wave pattern in the surface of the Earths crust. The areas which have snow due to colder temperatures would not be expected to exhibit this condition as prevalently because the water run off time would increase or water run off would be prevented causing the wave pattern to shorten or vanish toward the poles.

The condition above is exactly what is seen in the configuration of the continents.

Your plate techtonics proof depends on the assumption that the Earth has remained in a steady condition for millions of years.

If I assume there was a catistrophic event then the data also fits my theory but just on a quicker time scale.



Duane

PS
A theory is a "made up" idea that is intended to be proven or disproved by inspecting the facts.
It is hypocritical and arrogant of you to refer to another theory as "made up" when your own ideas are of a similar nature.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Wrongo!

A theory is an explanation of evidence.

Unfortunately for you, your theory has zero evidence and therefore is an explanation of nothing.

 

[Tomk80]

There is evidence against the floating plate theory.

If the plates floated around causing tropical fossil ferns to form under the ice caps on the poles it would stand to reason that the equator areas would have glacial conditions in the fossil record.

This is not the case.

Not if they never floated in such a region. That they can float around does not automatically mean that they have been everywhere on earth.

The theory that the Earth was once all tropical, and water was added to the surface causing the continents to float and changing the weather at the poles fits the geological record better.

First, could you give references to this theory?
Second, this could be explained by a closer position of the earth toward the sun. We know from studies on global average temperature that this temperature fluctuates.
Third, I don't know what the configuration of continents has been like, but if there were no continents on the poles, this could result in a tropical climate on all continents.

The water run off condition also explains the shape of the continents.

Not without also using contental drift. The himalaya cannot be explained by water run-off.

The size of the continents would be determined by the time required for the water to run to a low area. The slower the continents rose the larger the continent would be as the water has more time to travel. It should be expected that similar conditions of the stiffness of the Earth’’s surface and water run off times would cause a similar wave pattern in the surface of the Earths crust. The areas which have snow due to colder temperatures would not be expected to exhibit this condition as prevalently because the water run off time would increase or water run off would be prevented causing the wave pattern to shorten or vanish toward the poles.

The condition above is exactly what is seen in the configuration of the continents.

But you also need to account for the high areas, which you don't do above.

Your plate techtonics proof depends on the assumption that the Earth has remained in a steady condition for millions of years.

From a magma/crust point of view, yes. But then, a catastrophic event would not be able to explain that away.

If I assume there was a catistrophic event then the data also fits my theory but just on a quicker time scale.

No it doesn't. It only explains the dales, not the mountains.