Source of water for the flood

[flatworm]

One possible reason that the water could not stay on Venus is that Venus was too hot and lasted too long so the evaporation was too fast. In other words, the Venus cooled too slow.

The earth could and should be the same. However, the Noah's Flood cooled off the surface of the earth rapid enough to allow the beginning of the hydrological cycle. And that changed everything.

Hi, I'm not a geoscientist, but perhaps you could explain how the existence of the hydrological cycle,which to my knowledge occurs in and above the upper crust, has anything to do with preventing the shutdown of plate tectonics, which I thought involved the mantle and its interaction with the lower crust?

 

[juvenissun]

I'm no physicist, but why are we debating plausible explanations of a global flood? Wouldn't the energy required to cause a global flood and then remove all the water release enough heat to thoroughly cook practically all complex life?

IIRC, wouldn't magic be the only way it could occur, rendering a discussion of physics pointless?

You got it all reverses.

A global flood reduced a lot of energy on the earth.

 

[Loudmouth]

One possible reason that the water could not stay on Venus is that Venus was too hot and lasted too long so the evaporation was too fast. In other words, the Venus cooled too slow.

If Venus lost it's tectonic movement this would be a sign that the core had shut down. This would stop the planet from producing a magentic field. No magnetic field means no shield from incoming solar winds. These winds would strip the atmosphere of water. This is probably what happend on Mars.

The earth could and should be the same. However, the Noah's Flood cooled off the surface of the earth rapid enough to allow the beginning of the hydrological cycle. And that changed everything.

How do thousands of feet of molten basalt across the entire earth end up cooling the earth?

I am just saying that it was an entirely different earth.

We are talking about the Earth we are living on. Which Earth are you talking about?

 

[juvenissun]

Hi, I'm not a geoscientist, but perhaps you could explain how the existence of the hydrological cycle,which to my knowledge occurs in and above the upper crust, has anything to do with preventing the shutdown of plate tectonics, which I thought involved the mantle and its interaction with the lower crust?

There would be A LOT of consequences if there were no ocean on the earth (like Venus and Mars). For one, the model of subduction as we know it will not happen. It involves A LOT of water, although most of the water will come back to surface shortly after (you are right, the water will not go back to the mantle).

 

[Loudmouth]

There would be A LOT of consequences if there were no ocean on the earth (like Venus and Mars).

But there was an ocean. There is plenty of evidence to back it up. How else can you uplift thousands of feet of biogenic limestone during the flood without having large oceans pre-flood?

 

[flatworm]

There would be A LOT of consequences if there were no ocean on the earth (like Venus and Mars). For one, the model of subduction as we know it will not happen.

1) So how did it happen before this hypothetical water was released from the mantle?

2) How are oceans necessary to our current model of subduction?

3) Is our current model of subduction the only possible one?

It involves A LOT of water, although most of the water will come back to surface shortly after (you are right, the water will not go back to the mantle).

So you still didn't answer how the hydrological cycle prevented plate tectonics from shutting down.

 

[keith99]

It seems to me that this whole thread centers on a loaded question. The Biblical claim is divine intervention. So the intial question really comes down to 'explain this by natural processes'. If you can't then it never happened. But if you can then God had nothing to do with it.

BTW: I think the premise also fails on mere verbal grounds. The narative basically says the water covered everything. This is pretty much what some in New Orleans would have said about Katrina. There is also evidence both cultural and geologic that there was in fact a pretty nasty flood in the Meddeteranian. (That does not prove the Biblical story, in fact it could be viewed as quite the opposite, the roots of the myth).

 

[juvenissun]

But there was an ocean. There is plenty of evidence to back it up. How else can you uplift thousands of feet of biogenic limestone during the flood without having large oceans pre-flood?

Yes, the ocean originated from the Noah's Flood.

 

[Loudmouth]

It seems to me that this whole thread centers on a loaded question. The Biblical claim is divine intervention. So the intial question really comes down to 'explain this by natural processes'. If you can't then it never happened. But if you can then God had nothing to do with it.

Creationists claim that just by looking at the evidence it is apparent that there was a recent global flood. When the rubber meets the road this claim falls apart and they insert supernatural acts to explain the lack of evidence.

We have all seen creationists claim "We use the same evidence, we just interpret it differently". That differing interpretation is made plain. They explain away contradictory evidence with ad hoc miracles that leave no evidence.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

There would be A LOT of consequences if there were no ocean on the earth (like Venus and Mars). For one, the model of subduction as we know it will not happen. It involves A LOT of water, although most of the water will come back to surface shortly after (you are right, the water will not go back to the mantle).

So explain to me why subduction wouldn't happen if there was no ocean. In what way is the ocean water the driving force for subduction? As far as I know, the current plate tectonics model doesn't rely on water as an engine. Is water involved in subduction? Sure, but it is an accessory to subduction, rather than a primary factor. Water is most likely responsible for arc vulcanism, but in what way is this required to maintain tectonism?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, the ocean originated from the Noah's Flood.

Then how do we get thousands of feet of fossil bearing limestone at high elevations? How do we get 10,000 cubic miles of broken sea lilies at high elevation?

The Mission Canyon formation in the northwestern United States is part of a truly remarkable deposit. It is largely made of the remains of dead crinoids, which are deep-sea creatures called sea lilies. Clark and Stearn report,

"Much of the massive limestone formation is composed of sand-sized particles of calcium carbonate, fragments of crinoid plates, and shells broken by the waves. Such a sedimentary rock qualifies for the name sandstone because it is composed of particles of sand size cemented together; because the term sandstone is commonly understood to refer to a quartz-rich rock, however, these limestone sandstones are better called calcarenites. The Madison sea must have been shallow, and the waves and currents strong, to break the shells and plates of the animals when they died. The sorting of the calcite grains and the cross-bedding that is common in this formation are additional evidence of waves and currents at work. Even in Mississippian rocks, where whole crinoids are rare fossils, and as a result, it is easy to underestimate the population of these animals during the Paleozoic era. Crinoidal limestones, such as the Mission Canyon-Livingstone unit, provide an estimate, even though it be of necessity a rough one, of their abundance in the clear shallow seas they loved. In the Canadian Rockies the Livingstone limestone was deposited to a thickness of 2,000 feet on the margin of the Cordilleran geosyncline, but it thins rapidly eastward to a thickness of about 1,000 feet in the Front Ranges and to about 500 feet in the Williston Basin. Even though its crinoidal content decreases eastward, it may be calculated to represent at least 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates. How many millions, billions, trillions of crinoids would be required to provide such a deposit? The number staggers the imagination."46
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/toomanyanimals.htm

Don't forget that the area where these are found are at high elevation supposedly produced by Noah's Flood. There simply had to be oceans prior to the flood, and those oceans had to be around for millions of years in order to explain the massive size of marine deposits.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Yes, the ocean originated from the Noah's Flood.

You didn't answer his question. If the ocean originated from the flood, how is pre-flood limestone uplifted during the flood? WHere did this limestone come from?

 

[keith99]

Creationists claim that just by looking at the evidence it is apparent that there was a recent global flood. When the rubber meets the road this claim falls apart and they insert supernatural acts to explain the lack of evidence.

We have all seen creationists claim "We use the same evidence, we just interpret it differently". That differing interpretation is made plain. They explain away contradictory evidence with ad hoc miracles that leave no evidence.

I agree with you. However there are two different things in play. One is the single miracle the other is a huge string of them that can go anywhere. The first says OK God supplied the water and then took it away. But for that one we still expect signs to be left in the geologic (and perhaps anthropologic) records. Destroyed towns like Pompei. The second is postulating God did it (andf often it seems in a very deceptive way) to make the record look as it does, and it changes as our knowledge of the record changed.

Of course there is the very strong argument that the flood naritive is not meant to be read as litteral anyway. After all it ends with 'And that is why there are rainbows'. Not really typical of stories that are meant to be taken literally. Are we to think the laws of Physics were different before the flood and there were no rainbows?

 

[juvenissun]

It seems to me that this whole thread centers on a loaded question. The Biblical claim is divine intervention. So the intial question really comes down to 'explain this by natural processes'. If you can't then it never happened. But if you can then God had nothing to do with it.

BTW: I think the premise also fails on mere verbal grounds. The narative basically says the water covered everything. This is pretty much what some in New Orleans would have said about Katrina. There is also evidence both cultural and geologic that there was in fact a pretty nasty flood in the Meddeteranian. (That does not prove the Biblical story, in fact it could be viewed as quite the opposite, the roots of the myth).

Yes. The beauty of geological science as we know it now is that we can see some scientific reasons that could support or explain the Genesis Flood. However, we still can not prove it scientifically and need faith to complete the whole story. However, this situation is much much better than a total deny of the Genesis account.

To put it in a simple statement: we do not know how did the earth get her ocean water. God makes it.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Wow, epic fail, juven. We don't know something, so it must be that god made it.

If you want to have a god of the gaps, that's fine with me. Just realize that every day the gaps get smaller, and as a result so does your god. I hope you can deal with that.

 

[juvenissun]

You didn't answer his question. If the ocean originated from the flood, how is pre-flood limestone uplifted during the flood? WHere did this limestone come from?

What pre-flood limestone?

 

[AintNoMonkey]

What pre-flood limestone?

The limestone that we see at the top of many mountains, that supposedly were uplifted during the flood. How did it get there if not by being deposited pre-flood?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Yes. The beauty of geological science as we know it now is that we can see some scientific reasons that could support or explain the Genesis Flood.

Interesting, I've never seen this supporting evidence. I know of no globally correlatable "flood" event.

Could you tell us, for instance, where in the geologic column we see supporting evidence for The Flood? Remember that it cannot be contemporary with any time-correlatable formation that would show subaerial exposure. For then it would not be global in extent.

The beauty of Geology as we know it today is precisely that after centuries of attempts to align the "Noachian Flood" with the data in the rocks is that there has been no such alignment found.

However, we still can not prove it scientifically and need faith to complete the whole story.

No, faith in this case only serves to justify the belief in something that has no evidence. If you want to believe in the Flood and you don't have any evidence for it, then faith is all you have left to support the contention.

If I simply want to believe that my dog, Mr. F., is a magical being who is the reincarnation of Charles Lyell, then I'm going to have to rely solely on my desire to believe this. Because I'm pretty sure Charles Lyell did a bit more with his brain than chew on things, rub his butt on the carpet, beg for food and bark at the neighbor's cat like a madman.

There is no data to support my contention that Mr. F. is Charles Lyell reincarnated and living on the floor of my home.

(I have taken to referring to Mr. F as "Aleister Growley" because when he is in a grumpy mood he growls at us. Again, I assume Charles Lyell was not such a crab. But I could be wrong.)

To put it in a simple statement: we do not know how did the earth get her ocean water. God makes it.

Actually I thought we did have a pretty good understanding of why we have an ocean. We are on a planet that is in the "Goldilocks Zone" of proper solar radiance so volatiles like water and other gases don't just boil off, and we have the appropriate mass so that we can gravitationally hold onto an atmosphere.

Since H and O are reasonably common elements in the universe, H2O can be found in rocky planetary accretions.

In addition, H2O has a permanent dipole so it can exist as a liquid at temperatures and pressures that similarly light compounds may not exist at owing to strong hydrogen bonds.

I don't see much of a mystery to the development of surface water bodies on earth.

 

[juvenissun]

So explain to me why subduction wouldn't happen if there was no ocean. In what way is the ocean water the driving force for subduction? As far as I know, the current plate tectonics model doesn't rely on water as an engine. Is water involved in subduction? Sure, but it is an accessory to subduction, rather than a primary factor. Water is most likely responsible for arc vulcanism, but in what way is this required to maintain tectonism?

I am afraid that my knowledge is not enough to give you detailed answer on this. I assume the water functions like a lubricant in the action of subduction.

One thing I know is that there will be no melt (magma) along the Benioff Zone if water is not involved in subduction.

 

[juvenissun]

The limestone that we see at the top of many mountains, that supposedly were uplifted during the flood. How did it get there if not by being deposited pre-flood?

Of course, there will be no limestone if there were no ocean.