Scientific proof of flood.

MarkT · Apr 12, 2005

Magma continuously wells upwards at the mid-oceanic ridges (arrows) producing currents of magma flowing in opposite directions and thus generating the forces that pull the sea floor apart at the mid-oceanic ridges. As the ocean floor is spread apart cracks appear in the middle of the ridges allowing molten magma to surface through the cracks to form the newest ocean floor.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tecmech.html

The upwelling comes first which creates the force necessary to fracture the crust.

That's what it says but I disagree with the sentence you highlighted.

The upwelling comes after the crust is fractured. The upwelling is the effect.

There wouldn't be an upwelling without a fracture.

It's a question of what came first, the fracturing or the mantle currents. If the fracturing came first, then we have evidence for the flood.

Mechanical Bliss · Apr 12, 2005

MarkT said:
Notice heat has to escape to form convection cells.

And that occurs when the upwelling, heated material extends the crust and fractures it.

This creates a temperature difference that causes convection cells to form and drag the crust.

That's why I'm saying you have to have a fracture to let the heat escape to create the spreading effect.

To create a spreading motion such that the plates are pushed and dragged, yes, but not to initiate crustal extension.

Magma has to have a way out to the surface. The fracturing occurred at mid ocean. Heat escaped as the mid ocean ridges formed and the heat escape began the mantle convection currents.

The thing is, it's not as if the crust has ever been wholly solid. As it congealed plates would form automatically and drift because convection would already be going on in the mantle. The crust was not simply wholly intact and just magically started fracturing for no reason much later in its history.

Mechanical Bliss · Apr 12, 2005

MarkT said:
That's what it says but I disagree with the sentence you highlighted.

So why are you using a source as if it supports your claim when it actually directly diagrees with it?

The upwelling comes after the crust is fractured. The upwelling is the effect.

There wouldn't be an upwelling without a fracture.

Yes there would, because convection is already going on, and even if not full fledged convection locally, there would be localized temperature differences such that buoyant material would rise. This would come in contact with the crust, which is a relatively colder body, thereby creating a temperature difference so that the crust would extend and fracture.

It's a question of what came first, the fracturing or the mantle currents.

The mantle would have been convecting before a solid crust could even sustain itself in the first place. The fracturing is a side effect of this convection, as the article stated.

If the fracturing came first, then we have evidence for the flood.

This is one of the most gigantic non sequiturs I have ever read on this forum.

MarkT · Apr 12, 2005

This is one of the most gigantic non sequiturs I have ever read on this forum.

Evidence of catastrophic rifting and magma spilling out all of a sudden would be consistent with the flood theory. I'm saying there was rapid rifting at the end of the Triassic when the fountains of the deep exploded onto the surface of the earth and covered the earth. Low pressure at mid ocean cracked the surface of the earth and turned the earth's mantle into magma.

The age of the oldest seafloor rock points to when it happened and it stands to reason that if the rifting happened suddenly, the rate of spreading and plate motion would have been far greater at that time than it is today. In fact the deep ocean trenches would have formed suddenly (by subduction), volcanic islands would have been created suddenly and mountain ranges would have been created suddenly. After the event, things slowed down to a crawl so now you don't see rapid motion anymore.

MarkT · Apr 12, 2005

Before this event, I would imagine the surface of the earth was generally flat.

The Bible tells us it was watered by mists. "A mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground." Genesis 2:6

Vast swamps existed. The mid ocean today was probably a swamp back then.

Shallow seas and rivers existed such as the river that watered Eden. So the ground was watered by springs that became rivers and mists.

I assume there were no volcanoes before the flood.

There were dinosaurs and people.

Of course they didn't inhabit the same environment.

I don't know how many people there were or how they took care of the dead. I think most of the sediments were laid down before the flood. And human beings don't leave their own kind lying around to be covered with sediments.

Of course the Bible doesn't give us alot of information but I think the general idea is the conditions were different before the flood; probably hot, humid and tropical, with ferns and giant trees and things growing everywhere.

theFijian · Apr 12, 2005

JohnR7 said:
Yes, and my point was that you can use the Scientific Method to understand the Bible.

Logical Positivism is not a road you want to go down John.

Matthew777 · Apr 12, 2005

Problems with a Global Flood? [size=-1]
(a rebuttal of Mark Isaaks Problems with a Global Flood FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive)
© 1998 J. Sarfati & Answers In Genesis. All Rights Reserved. [Last Modified: 21 January 2004][/size]
http://trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

Edx · Apr 12, 2005

A Matthew: Someone which is lazy enough to expect everyone else to work, while not ever working himself.

Mechanical Bliss · Apr 12, 2005

MarkT said:
Evidence of catastrophic rifting and magma spilling out all of a sudden would be consistent with the flood theory.

No it wouldn't. You need to demonstrate that there was a water reservoir beneath the crust first before that can have any meaning at all.

I'm saying there was rapid rifting at the end of the Triassic when the fountains of the deep exploded onto the surface of the earth and covered the earth. Low pressure at mid ocean cracked the surface of the earth and turned the earth's mantle into magma.

So you're using the well known make-stuff-up approach.

The age of the oldest seafloor rock points to when it happened and it stands to reason that if the rifting happened suddenly, the rate of spreading and plate motion would have been far greater at that time than it is today. In fact the deep ocean trenches would have formed suddenly (by subduction), volcanic islands would have been created suddenly and mountain ranges would have been created suddenly. After the event, things slowed down to a crawl so now you don't see rapid motion anymore.

In order to claim that this rapid motion occurred, you have to ignore evidence, which is what you seem to be doing with these distractions. Catastrophic plate tectonism has been disproved. Simply telling the story over and over again while ignoring the refutations does not make it true.

Mechanical Bliss · Apr 12, 2005

MarkT said:
Before this event, I would imagine the surface of the earth was generally flat.

Imagination doesn't count in science; evidence does.

The Appalachian Mountains existed before this event you want to happen would have occurred, and they would have had no mechanism for formation with your model. That's another reason why catastrophic plate tectonism is false.

The Bible tells us it was watered by mists. "A mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground." Genesis 2:6

Unsupported assertion.

Vast swamps existed. The mid ocean today was probably a swamp back then.

Unsupported assertion.

Shallow seas and rivers existed such as the river that watered Eden. So the ground was watered by springs that became rivers and mists.

Unsupported assertion

I assume there were no volcanoes before the flood.

Unsupported assertion disproved by geological evidence. We have volcanic ash layers and igneous sills and dikes that are older than the Triassic.

There were dinosaurs and people.

Of course they didn't inhabit the same environment.

Unsupported assertion disproved by paleontological evidence.

I don't know how many people there were or how they took care of the dead. I think most of the sediments were laid down before the flood.

In order for this to have any meaning at all you need to make a clear identification of which sediments are pre-, syn-, and post-flood.

And human beings don't leave their own kind lying around to be covered with sediments.

So why aren't they found at the same stratigraphic level as dinosaurs or even below them?

Of course the Bible doesn't give us alot of information but I think the general idea is the conditions were different before the flood; probably hot, humid and tropical, with ferns and giant trees and things growing everywhere.

Unsupported assertion. And it's clear that the information you claim it gives you is false.

Mechanical Bliss · Apr 12, 2005

Matthew777 said:
Problems with a Global Flood? [size=-1]
(a rebuttal of Mark Isaaks Problems with a Global Flood FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive)
© 1998 J. Sarfati & Answers In Genesis. All Rights Reserved. [Last Modified: 21 January 2004][/size]
http://trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

Why are you spamming?

Why do you even bother with an article like this when you've already stated that physical evidence doesn't mean anything to you? It's contradictory.

Girl_4_God · Jun 14, 2005

Arikay said:
You have to admit, it must be shocking. For 10 years she has been told evolution is atheism, no transitional fossils exist, evolution says the big bang came from nothing, etc. To learn that it is all untrue and her sources didn't even define evolution right, is a pretty big shock.

I know in two of my hobbies, there is practically no way I could sit down and explain to my friends they have got it all wrong and have them believe me even though it should be obvious I know what I'm talking about, they stick with what they think is true. Some have eventually learned for themselves and changed over time.
Combine the general unwillingness to accept you got something wrong with her sources telling her that evolution is against her religion and evil and an overnight change to even be willing to accept the truth is very unlikely.

I want to know why your so nice when every one else is so mean?

Jenny

Girl_4_God · Jun 14, 2005

Mechanical Bliss said:
Just because you've been lied to by your sources and people are pointing out the flaws in the things you post here from those sources doesn't mean you have to take your ball and go home. You could take this opportunity to learn.

It's not me that has been lied to. It's you that have been lied to. And you want to know something its actually by the devil because he doesn't want you to beleave in God and if God didn't create the world then why should you beleave in him?
Jenny

troodon · Jun 14, 2005

Girl_4_God said:
if God didn't create the world then why should you beleave in him?

Because He loves us?
Because He died for us?
Because He has given us the opportunity to live life.

It's 11:56PM and I'm lightly studying for my physics (relativity and quantum mechanics, I highly recommend you study it some time) final tomorrow. I plan on going for a walk in a couple of minutes and enjoying the late-spring evening. I'm going to walk to the church down the road, sit down in the parking lot, and thank God for the life he has given me and maybe ask for some luck on the test

Would I owe God less if the world is older than you think it is? Would you?

As for being lied to... I'm not really sure what to tell you. I can tell you for a fact that I have seen many genuine lies and amazing falsehoods in the 2+ years I've been discussing evolution, on and off, on this website. A few of them were on pro-evolution websites, the vast majority of them were on Creationist websites.

If you genuinely think that we're being misled by Satan, that I'm being misled by the devil, then I don't think anything said on this forum is going to persuade you differently. All I can encourage you to do is educate yourself in the real world. I don't just mean read evolutionist or creationist books. I mean pay attention in your classes and politely ask any questions you have. Go to college and take some, or sit in on some, real hard-science classes. Geology, minerology, chemistry, anthropology, biology, intro-paleontology classes. Study, read, and be inquisitive of your professors. Here you'll get a taste, just a taste!, of what we're talking about here. The evidence that supports our position is not all in some millionaire atheist's basement, it is in universities around the world and inside the earth itself. I find it all rather inspiring. The earth is so big, and the universe is so old, and God still loves me to death.

Girl_4_God · Jun 15, 2005

How can any of you look around outside and belive that its just chance that the trees are here and that there are animals and people. It's all so amazing and complex that there must have been a Creator. I belive the reason that evolutionists (not any of you maybe) don't want to think there is a Creator is because they don't want to answer to Him for the wrong things they do.
Jenny

pantsman52 · Jun 15, 2005

Girl_4_God said:
How can any of you look around outside and belive that its just chance that the trees are here and that there are animals and people. It's all so amazing and complex that there must have been a Creator. I belive the reason that evolutionists (not any of you maybe) don't want to think there is a Creator is because they don't want to answer to Him for the wrong things they do.
Jenny

This argument has been used over and over, and it's getting really old. I think of the trees and the animals the way I look at a city. It started small, relatively simple, maybe a wooden shack and a water hole. Residential areas started to pop up, and with that came businesses. Buildings spread out, got taller, more people came, and eventually you have a bustling metropolis. Nature is like a bunch of legos to me, and what I see when I look outside is the culmination of millions of years of building, with more to come.

pantsman52 · Jun 15, 2005

Girl_4_God said:
It's not me that has been lied to. It's you that have been lied to. And you want to know something its actually by the devil because he doesn't want you to beleave in God and if God didn't create the world then why should you beleave in him?
Jenny

Oh great, shes falling back to the "it's the devil who makes you not believe me!" argument. This ones gone dry.

troodon · Jun 15, 2005

Girl_4_God said:
How can any of you look around outside and belive that its just chance that the trees are here and that there are animals and people.

Evolution isn't chance. Evolution is going to happen no matter what, it is simply a question of what is going to evolve. Once you get life on this planet it is inevitable that this life is going to expand and diversify. Some life on this planet happened to become multicellular. Some of this multicellular life happened to evolve into trees, humans, and certain other types of animals on our planet. I don't really find anything all that amazing about that, it's what evolution does.

It's all so amazing and complex that there must have been a Creator.

The fact of the matter is that the universe is very old and that life on earth has changed drastically over time, every shred of evidence that exists points to those two facts. If you think that life could not have developed to the point it is without God's intervention then, as long stays within that framework of facts, there is nothing to say that you're wrong. As far as we know God guided evolution ever since the first lifeforms appeared on this planet. I happen to disagree with that hypothesis, but I can't falsify it.

I belive the reason that evolutionists (not any of you maybe) don't want to think there is a Creator is because they don't want to answer to Him for the wrong things they do.

I don't see what evolution has to do with that. I believe in God, I believe that I will someday be judged for my actions here on earth, and I accept evolutionary theory. In all honesty, that stuff about evolution existing for the sake of keeping people from believing in God is empty propaganda. I'm reminded of something my Anthropology 1 professor said on the last day of class, "Evolution is great science and terrible philosophy."

Asimov · Jun 15, 2005

Girl_4_God said:
How can any of you look around outside and belive that its just chance that the trees are here and that there are animals and people. It's all so amazing and complex that there must have been a Creator. I belive the reason that evolutionists (not any of you maybe) don't want to think there is a Creator is because they don't want to answer to Him for the wrong things they do.
Jenny

Well I think you don't want to believe in Santa because you don't want to get coal in your stocking.

Asimov · Jun 15, 2005

Girl_4_God said:
It's not me that has been lied to. It's you that have been lied to. And you want to know something its actually by the devil because he doesn't want you to beleave in God and if God didn't create the world then why should you beleave in him?
Jenny

Well actually, Satan is lying to you! He wants you to insult God's creation by spreading misinformation about the universe and all that is in it.

Scientific proof of flood.

Veteran

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Senior Veteran

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Active Member

Active Member

Be wise and be smart

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Be wise and be smart

Objectivist

Objectivist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency