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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
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.
What pre-flood limestone?
Of course, there will be no limestone if there were no ocean.
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.
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.....
Yes, if the fossils are marine fossils, the limestone can be considered marine deposited.Good point. However, it is quite obvious how fossilferous limestone forms.
I meant no disrepect to Loudmouth - I hope he understands (I think he will, he's a cool guy).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!
i know, science can be boring - the data interpretation, the computer modelling.........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.).
Well, I see this thread went south - [no offense].
It's better than north!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.Well, I see this thread went south - [no offense].
Please do not respond. I am not talking to anyone, but to myself.
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 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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?