Source of water for the flood

[Loudmouth]

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?

Read some of AV1611VET's and dad's posts. They argue, respectively, that God took away evidence of the flood ("cleaned up his mess") and that the laws of physics were different so that there were not rainbows.

 

[Molal]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AintNoMonkey
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.

There are two things being discussed here. J insinuated (according to AintNoMonkey) that subduction would not occur without water. Which is incorrect.

J. then explains that he has no knowledge on this, yet subduction melting ONLY occurs due to water. This is demonstrably untrue, melting would occur without water. The presence of water decreases the metling point. Its absence does not prevent melting.

The presence of water primarily reduces the melting temperature of peridotitic minerals in the subducted plate AND the mantle.

What this has to do with a global flood I have no idea.....

 

[Loudmouth]

What pre-flood limestone?

Take, for example, the hundreds of feet of limestone found within Mt. Everest. How did it get there if not from pre-flood deposition in a pre-flood ocean?

 

[Molal]

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

This is false:

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/gsaabstr/cyclothems.aspx

 

[keith99]

Read some of AV1611VET's and dad's posts. They argue, respectively, that God took away evidence of the flood ("cleaned up his mess") and that the laws of physics were different so that there were not rainbows.

Yea, I've seen them. I rarely do more than skim their posts these days.

I am reminded of an episode on one of the old Science Fiction TV shows (old enought to have been black and white). The whole story centeers around a preacher who claims the Devil can tamper with the written word, but not with mens memories. Thus only the memorized and spoken 'Scripture' is safely God's word, Satan can fool men with everything else.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

There are two things being discussed here. J insinuated (according to AintNoMonkey) that subduction would not occur without water. Which is incorrect.

J. then explains that he has no knowledge on this, yet subduction melting ONLY occurs due to water. This is demonstrably untrue, melting would occur without water. The presence of water decreases the metling point. Its absence does not prevent melting.

The presence of water primarily reduces the melting temperature of peridotitic minerals in the subducted plate AND the mantle.

What this has to do with a global flood I have no idea.....

Ok, then I'm not the only one that's confused by why this is being discussed. Good.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is false:

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/gsaabstr/cyclothems.aspx

Good point. However, it is quite obvious how fossilferous limestone forms.

 

[Molal]

Good point. However, it is quite obvious how fossilferous limestone forms.

Yes, if the fossils are marine fossils, the limestone can be considered marine deposited.

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/responses/2004NE/63.ppt

This ppt can be found on the internet and shows a freshwater limestone with freshwater fossil ostracodes, and gastropods (I think). Clearly, the freshwater fossils are not as frequent as marine fossiliferous limestone, but nontheless I think the point is made.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/responses/2004NE/63.ppt

Nice PPT. Saved.

 

[Molal]

Nice PPT. Saved.

I meant no disrepect to Loudmouth - I hope he understands (I think he will, he's a cool guy).

The ppt is a great example of field work and unpublished data. This is how science works and it's fun!

 

[AintNoMonkey]

I meant no disrepect to Loudmouth - I hope he understands (I think he will, he's a cool guy).

The ppt is a great example of field work and unpublished data. This is how science works and it's fun!

Well, I think the point is that a vast majority of the LS we have is clearly marine in origin. Your lacustrin limestones are great academically, but for the sake of this discussion, it's safe to say that we're talking about marine LS.

And you're right, science is fun (Most of the time, at least. I'm not having a great deal of fun with my work right now, though. Ultra-tedium.).

 

[Molal]

Well, I think the point is that a vast majority of the LS we have is clearly marine in origin. Your lacustrin limestones are great academically, but for the sake of this discussion, it's safe to say that we're talking about marine LS.

And you're right, science is fun (Most of the time, at least. I'm not having a great deal of fun with my work right now, though. Ultra-tedium.).

i know, science can be boring - the data interpretation, the computer modelling.........

But, on the whole science is wonderful and I enjoy it immensely.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, I see this thread went south - [no offense].

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Well, I see this thread went south - [no offense].

Yeah, discussing science is teh lamest. Let's ignore all evidence and logic and play like we're interested in science, but never listen to what others have to say! FUN!

 

[Molal]

Well, I see this thread went south - [no offense].

It's better than north!

No offense taken.

 

[TheManeki]

Well, I see this thread went south - [no offense].

Uh, oh...

Noooo! The banjos! They're getting louder!

 

[juvenissun]

Well, I see this thread went south - [no offense].

I have done mine. It is hard to continue the discussion with people at different levels. They asked you a few intuitive questions. You gave some analysis. They do not quite understand, do not appreciate but said you are wrong. That is enough to end any discussion. I am amazed that how difficult it could be in order to have a positive attitude of debating.

Please do not respond. I am not talking to anyone, but to myself.

 

[Molal]

Please do not respond. I am not talking to anyone, but to myself.

Ok.....

But you still didn't provide any peer reviewed published data to support ANY of your assertions.

 

[flatworm]

I have done mine. It is hard to continue the discussion with people at different levels. They asked you a few intuitive questions. You gave some analysis. They do not quite understand, do not appreciate but said you are wrong. That is enough to end any discussion. I am amazed that how difficult it could be in order to have a positive attitude of debating.

Please do not respond. I am not talking to anyone, but to myself.

I'm disappointed. I was hoping to see some kind of real scientific argument, but all I've been seeing is a standard creationist formula. Here's how it works: you vaguely sketch an idea and claim it resolves some difficulty X with whatever flavour of creationism you believe in. It helps to make up a fancy name for it. Mind you, this idea is never developed in depth. In particular, they tend to lack several of the following:

-A detailed description of the mechanism of action;
-An explanation for how this phenomenon came to be;
-Physical evidence indicating it actually happened;
-Predictions that would falsify the hypothesis if they failed to materialize;

Even more telling, these explanations tend to focus very narrowly on the difficulty they try to explain away. Never are they and their side effects analyzed to see if they agree with known evidence, and whether they contradict similar hypothesis introduced to solve other difficulties.

The Vapour Canopy hypothesis, Hydroplate Theory, Baraminology, Runaway Tectonics, Tired Light, Accelerated Decay, I've heard them all. All fluff, and no meat. I'd like to see an actual scientific explanation from creationists, not just the throwaway lines they use to impress the rubes and make them open their wallets.

 

[FishFace]

I assume you are referring to the ark itself.

The ark floated upon the flood, it wasn't broadsided by it. The floodwaters came in pretty gently over the Mesopotamian plain and rather gently lifted the ark up. The heavy weight of the ark would have caused it to ride very low in the water with very little freeboard. This would prevent even large waves from upsetting or damaging it.

owg

Maths, please.