Scientific proof of flood.

Douglaangu v2.0 · Mar 3, 2005

duordi said:
I can see the picture.

How much more do I need to prove it wasn't random.

Unless of course you want to calcualte the average wave length of the surface water.

Duane

His point is that you havn't given scientific proof of the flood, only speculation.

Like he said, where is the data?

duordi · Mar 3, 2005

leccy said:
Some believe dirt in land is lighter than water and floats higher? Are you implying that the land is floating on water?

No, the continents float on magma, the molten layer below the Earths crust.

The continents are thicker and float in magma like an iceberg floats in water, while the crust under the oceans are thinner and float in magma like surface ice floats on a lake.

This of course is an example and does not intend to assume correct proportions.

The actual density of water and land is a complicated question and I am not sure any

one can say for sure with the data we have, but if you can find something I would like to hear about it.

Duane

leccy · Mar 3, 2005

Actually we have quite a lot of data on the density of water and land. The density of water is around about 1g/cm3, though of course the salt water in the oceans has slightly higher density of around 1.026g/cm3 and there is some variation around this figure.

Continental crust is composed of predominantly granitic and andesitic rocks, together with various sedimentary and metamorphic rocks yielding a density of something like 2.6-2.7g/cm3, as an average. Newly formed oceanic crust is formed of denser igneous rocks such as basalt and gabbro, giving a higher average density of more than 3g/cm3. The oceanic crust is thinner, typically being up to 10km thick and the continental crust is thicker, typically around 35-50km thick. Both oceanic and continental crust float on the molten asthenosphere and the key feature is that continental crust is less dense than oceanic crust, and therefore more buoyant.

Your iceberg versus sheet ice analogy only goes part way to explaining the different isostatic responses of the oceanic and continetal crust, as both icebergs and sheet ice are likely to be of similar density.

duordi · Mar 3, 2005

leccy said:
Actually we have quite a lot of data on the density of water and land. The density of water is around about 1g/cm3, though of course the salt water in the oceans has slightly higher density of around 1.026g/cm3 and there is some variation around this figure.

Continental crust is composed of predominantly granitic and andesitic rocks, together with various sedimentary and metamorphic rocks yielding a density of something like 2.6-2.7g/cm3, as an average. Newly formed oceanic crust is formed of denser igneous rocks such as basalt and gabbro, giving a higher average density of more than 3g/cm3. The oceanic crust is thinner, typically being up to 10km thick and the continental crust is thicker, typically around 35-50km thick. Both oceanic and continental crust float on the molten asthenosphere and the key feature is that continental crust is less dense than oceanic crust, and therefore more buoyant.

Your iceberg versus sheet ice analogy only goes part way to explaining the different isostatic responses of the oceanic and continetal crust, as both icebergs and sheet ice are likely to be of similar density.

Very good.

How did we figure out the density down though the continents at great depths?

Some kind if seismic information?

Duane

Vastavus · Mar 3, 2005

I can see the picture.

How much more do I need to prove it wasn't random.

I can see the Earth, It looks flat. How much more evidence do I need to prove that the Earth is flat?

duordi · Mar 3, 2005

Vastavus said:
I can see the Earth, It looks flat. How much more evidence do I need to prove that the Earth is flat?

Explain why a ship will appear to sink as it leaves shore until only the mask head is ticking up.

And I wont even make you measure the picture.

Duane

Vastavus · Mar 3, 2005

Explain why a ship will appear to sink as it leaves shore until only the mask head is ticking up.

And I wont even make you measure the picture.

Duane

Explain away all the evidence in the link I posted. Your claim of "the hoodoos seem to be kind of the same distance apart, judging by estimation" has no greater scientific merit than saying the world is flat, because it appears that way at first glance.

Many other things are perfectly spaced and ordered, and are perfectly natural. One example that I will cite is the Giant's Causeway in Ireland. The Irish thought that it was built by giants, just as you think a world-wide flood carved out the remarkable hoodoos of Bryce Canyon. Both have been proven false by science.

But I can see how the Irish would think so, the volcanic basalt looks just like neatly carved rocks.

leccy · Mar 4, 2005

duordi said:
Very good.

How did we figure out the density down though the continents at great depths?

Some kind if seismic information?

Duane

There is a combination of different data sets including seismic data as you say, plus exposures of deep crustal material that have been exposed in the eroded cores of ancient mountain chains, recycled deeper crust brought to the surface by tectonic activity as well as by the composition of igneous rocks which include chunks of deeper rocks (xenoliths) that have been brought to the surface. All of these indirectly tell us about the structure, processes and composition of various levels in the crust.

Ledifni · Mar 4, 2005

duordi said:
Rivers do not have ocean waves.

The grand canyon has many examples of river water erosion.

The effect is very different.

Duane

Yes, you're right, the effect is different.

Have you ever seen a cliff at the edge of the ocean? That is what ocean water erosion looks like. The formations in the Grand Canyon have the characteristics of erosion done by a constant stream of water flowing through a restricted channel -- that is to say, a river.

Now, if you want to show that the higher formations demonstrate erosion consistent with conditions on an ocean's shore, which is what we'd expect if your hypotheses are correct, you'll need to provide such data, because every observation by reputable scientists shows the opposite.

Do you have data? No. You're making things up, and as many people have tried to tell you and other creationists time and time again, YOU CANNOT JUST INVENT THEORIES OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH. If the data does not support your ideas, then you are WRONG. Not, "Well, maybe you guys could possible be wrong, which means I'd have to be right!" No data, no validity. PERIOD.

duordi · Mar 4, 2005

Vastavus said:
Explain away all the evidence in the link I posted. Your claim of "the hoodoos seem to be kind of the same distance apart, judging by estimation" has no greater scientific merit than saying the world is flat, because it appears that way at first glance.

Many other things are perfectly spaced and ordered, and are perfectly natural. One example that I will cite is the Giant's Causeway in Ireland. The Irish thought that it was built by giants, just as you think a world-wide flood carved out the remarkable hoodoos of Bryce Canyon. Both have been proven false by science.

But I can see how the Irish would think so, the volcanic basalt looks just like neatly carved rocks.

Are you saying that the rocks in the cavern are basalt?

But even if they were they separated vertically.

The columns would fall over.

This seems irrational.

Hmm....

There comes a time for many of us when we have to make a choice between

the logic and the truth of science

or the truth and faith which comes from the religion-of-what-we-believe.

You are making yours, and please dont misunderstand.

I admire you for your faith.

Its just that I am not willing to leave my science and logic truth at this point in my life.

May your search go well.

Duane

aziel92 · Mar 4, 2005

notto said:
The problem I can see with this is that the creatinist flood model typically claims the same flood that caused the sediment that later became the SOLID ROCK is what caused the erosion.

When did the SOLID ROCK that these formations are carved out of form?

This does not mention erosion sediment forming solid rock.

Are you sure that you are not mixing two aspects of the flood model? erosion of existing structures and creation of new rock from this sediment?

duordi · Mar 4, 2005

Douglaangu v2.0 said:
His point is that you havn't given scientific proof of the flood, only speculation.

Like he said, where is the data?

So all I have to do is travel out there and climb up the column drill the rock and do hardness tests to verify that the rock is consistent in hardness, proving that the erosion variation is not due to rock hardness.

Then as soon as I get out of jail for defacing public landmarks, I can post the data here where you will inform me that the data is inadequate or faulty in some way.

Ha! Ha!
But I already have several collaborating evidences.

1. The rock has horizontal random erosion marks at equal elevations on all visible columns which can be verified visibly, it does not require me to climb the column because measurement would make it no more certain then a visual observation.

2. The Rock has ventricle equally spaced pillars which can be verified by the photograph, enlarge it if you need to.

I would return with no more compelling information if I claimed the thing and measured it myself, as you would easily doubt me more then your own eyes.

3. The grain in the rock can only go one way not two.

4. Even if the rock could have a grain in two directions the pillars are identical distances apart and grain thickness is random, as found from scientific research.

5. This visual effect shown is evident in hard rock faces which have large wave impact as can be easily found by a web search, as I have.

6. You can not explain the structure in any other logical way, I have tried, how I have tried.

If you can not believe your eyes, I doubt the numbers on a paper would convince you because they wouldn't have convenced me either.

I didn't invent rock structure research or knowledge of grain direction and rock creation, it is a study of science.

I didn't invent the study of wave erosion, it has ben scientifically researched.

I didn't define the form wind and ice erosion take, it is has been scientifically researched.

Do you have no scientific curiosity?

Is faith in your beliefs more important then science and truth?

Yes, a hard question indeed.

Duane

Vastavus · Mar 5, 2005

Are you saying that the rocks in the cavern are basalt?

Yes, that is a fact.

But even if they were they separated vertically.

The columns would fall over.

No they would not, the pressure from surrounding columns, and gravity's downward pull, keep them in place.

This seems irrational.

It makes perfect sense to me. Also, if you dissagree with science, then how do you think that Giant's Causeway was formed, Giants?

I admire you for your faith.

It doesn't take faith to believe what science has proven.

Its just that I am not willing to leave my science and logic truth at this point in my life.

It looks like you may already have left it. Everything that you have posted in this thread contradicts science, logic, and truth.

duordi · Mar 5, 2005

So if the hardness was checked on the pillars and it was found that the neck was not the weak point in the material but that the rock material was consistent.

Or perhaps a replica model could be made in a lab slowly raising sandstone out of the water surface of a wave tank.

Would you change your belief or reject the evidence?

What would it take?

Or have you already decided regardless of the facts.

Duane

larry lunchpail · Mar 5, 2005

duordi said:
1. The rock has horizontal random erosion marks at equal elevations on all visible columns which can be verified visibly, it does not require me to climb the column because measurement would make it no more certain then a visual observation.

the horizontal marks you speak of separate different types of rock layers. they arent water rings, or whatever you think they are.

the rest of your post i have no clue what youre talking about. grain in the rock going one way but not two?? all pillars being equally spaced?? wave impacts????

floods dont make canyons. slow, steady erosion does though.

W Jay Schroeder · Mar 5, 2005

while we are on canyons. No canyons are not only made by slow erosion, this is a false statement. there are plenty of canyons made by a flood. And it stands to reason if it can make one this way a world flood could make one a lot bigger. As for the canyons being formed say the grand canyon, I read it took 50 some million years to form it. some of the sandstone was supoosed to be from a ocean beach of some sort washing ashore. All the rock is of different material in the strata layers. Well how did the river stay in exsistence while the ocean was by it or over it, as in how the sand stone got there. why is there so many different types of rocks in layers, how did it or why did it change. the canyon is not one side of rock and another it is meandering and up and down narrow and wide. Where is all the dirt that was washed away at. it is not in the gulf of mexico where it should be. Also how did it stay in the same channel or happen while the continents where moveing at the same time, plate tectonic. is there any evidence of plate tectonics working on it. Also why are there other much faster rivers that have not done the same thing. Where did the river come from in the beginning. Did the rockies form first then the canyon, how do the dates of both match up. Is this to many questions.

larry lunchpail · Mar 5, 2005

W Jay Schroeder said:
there are plenty of canyons made by a flood.

can i have some links please? when i google 'flood' and 'canyon' i get, well, you know...

you can easily find the answers to all your questions in any book on the subject. but you wouldnt read it, and if you did you wouldnt believe it. so why bother asking?

W Jay Schroeder · Mar 5, 2005

larry lunchpail said:
can i have some links please? when i google 'flood' and 'canyon' i get, well, you know...

you can easily find the answers to all your questions in any book on the subject. but you wouldnt read it, and if you did you wouldnt believe it. so why bother asking?

look at AiG and search canyons. burlingame canyon in washington. it formed in six days went from a ditch to a canyon 1,500 ft long and 120 ft deep and wide. they have a picture that is pretty impressive. It isnt hard to assume a world flood would have done this in a lot of areas on the earth. the providence canyon in gorgia. It took a little longer decades but it is also very large, they call it the mini grand canyon because of how it looks.

Lucretius · Mar 5, 2005

I went to answersingenesis to see this canyon. The canyon resulted from high velocity and high pressure water being focused down a certain irrigation pathway. When something is flooded over, the water is not going to be focused like this was. It isn't going to be shooting at a high velocity and pressure down a set path.

This canyon would not have been made without the assistance of MEN. If MEN had not diverted the water flow due to unusually high spring rains, as AiG says, then the canyon would not have been formed.

caravelair · Mar 5, 2005

W Jay Schroeder said:
look at AiG and search canyons. burlingame canyon in washington. it formed in six days went from a ditch to a canyon 1,500 ft long and 120 ft deep and wide. they have a picture that is pretty impressive. It isnt hard to assume a world flood would have done this in a lot of areas on the earth. the providence canyon in gorgia. It took a little longer decades but it is also very large, they call it the mini grand canyon because of how it looks.

i checked AIG and found this article. unfortunately, john morris doesn't provide a single reference for me to check. am i supposed to just take his word for it?

Scientific proof of flood.

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active Member

Senior Member

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be

Senior Member

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Active Member

Senior Member

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be

Senior Member

Active Member

Quaker Man

Active Member

Quaker Man

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency