Walt Brown's Solar System

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Walt Brown's explanation of the origin of water on planets is quite interesting. If the pre flood, and flood earth were in a different state, it would be easy to get material out of earth's orbit. This seems to be a good possible explanation of where the flood waters went. Also, why planets are pock marked by impacts.


"About 38% of a comet’s mass is frozen water. Therefore, to understand comet origins, one must ask, “Where is water found?” Earth, sometimes called “the water planet,” must head the list. (The volume of water on Earth is ten times greater than the volume of all land above sea level.) Other planets, moons, and even interstellar space78 have only traces of water, or possible water. Some traces, instead of producing comets, may have been delivered by comets or by water vapor that the fountains of the great deep launched into space. How could so many comets have recently hit the Moon, and probably the planet Mercury, that ice remains today? Ice on the Moon, and certainly on hot Mercury, should disappear faster than comets deposit it today. However, if 50,000 comets were ejected recently from Earth and an “ocean” of water vapor was injected into the inner solar system, the problem disappears. On Mars, comet impacts created brief saltwater flows, which then carved “erosion” channels. [See Figure 160 on page 299.]

prediction.jpg
PREDICTION 24: Soil in “erosion” channels on Mars will contain traces of earthlike soluble compounds, such as salt from Earth’s preflood subterranean chambers. Soil far from “erosion” channels will not. (This prediction was first published in April 2001. Salt was first discovered on Mars in March 2004.79)

To form comets in space, should we start with water as a solid, liquid, or gas?
Gas. In space, gases (such as water vapor) will expand into the vacuum if not gravitationally bound to some large body. Gases by themselves would not contract to form a comet. Besides, the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation breaks water vapor into hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), and hydroxyl (OH). Comets would not form from gases.
Solid. Comets might form by the combining of smaller ice particles, including ice condensed as frost on microscopic dust grains that somehow formed. However, one icy dust grain could not capture another unless their speeds and directions were nearly identical and one of the particles had a rapidly expanding sphere of influence or a gaseous envelope. Because ice molecules are loosely bound to each other, collisions among ice particles would fragment, scatter, and vaporize them—not merge them.
Liquid. Large rocks and muddy water were expelled by the fountains of the great deep. The water would partially evaporate, leave dirt behind, rapidly radiate its heat to cold outer space, and freeze. (Outer space has an effective temperature of nearly absolute zero, -460°F.) The dirt crust encasing the ice would prevent complete evaporation. (Recall that the nucleus of Halley’s comet was black, and a comet’s tail contains dust particles.)"
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets10.html
 
Last edited:

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Where do you find this "stuff"? ^_^

Walt Brown's explanation of the origin of water on planets is quite interesting.

IF you insist on the Bible being literally true in Genesis. Yes, I'm sure it is.

If the pre flood, and flood earth were in a different state, it would be easy to get material out of earth's orbit.

That and the magic bunnies! Don't forget the magic bunnies! Their magical "Different state" hind legs would help propel stuff out of the earth's orbit!

Yay magic bunnies.

This seems to be a good possible explanation of where the flood waters went.

INFINITELY better than having to face the possibility that parts of Genesis are allegorical mythology stories!

Because that would destroy, completely, the tenuous grasp on faith that some folks here seem to be saddled with. People who live in shuddering fear of -gasp- having to think in their faith! Yikes!

Also, why planets are pock marked by impacts.

Sure, why not? Don't forget SPACE WORMS. They have been hypothesized to burrow into other planets! And they are the sworn enemies of Magic Bunnies!

"About 38% of a comet’s mass is frozen water. Therefore, to understand comet origins, one must ask, “Where is water found?” Earth, sometimes called “the water planet,” must head the list.

Uh, well, that's assuming a huge chunk of the universe's water is located here, yeah. But then you'd have to be pretty stupid to assume that, considering the vastness of space and the relative abundance of hydrogen and oxygen in such vastness.

Just a tick, what do the folks at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory have to say on this topic:
There are enourmous amounts of water in space. In fact, nearly all of the oxygen in space is in the form of water or carbon monoxide. (SOURCE)
emphasis added

Gosh. Who should I believe? The NRAO or Walt Brown, mechanical engineer? Hmmmm.

How could so many comets have recently hit the Moon, and probably the planet Mercury, that ice remains today? Ice on the Moon, and certainly on hot Mercury, should disappear faster than comets deposit it today.

Well, again, there are some explanations for this "mystery"

Scientists now believe that the ice resides on the floors of craters at Mercury's north pole, where it can remain permanently shaded from the Sun and reach temperatures as low as 125 degrees Kelvin (-235 degrees Farenheit). (SOURCE)

GOSH! Do you think water ice can exist at such low temperatures on "hot Mercury"? (Maybe he should worry more about sublimation at these temperatures!)

Maybe if Walt Brown would read some science once in a while? This was pretty easy to find. I'm sure he could have one of his literate friends "Google" some stuff for him?

However, if 50,000 comets were ejected recently from Earth and an “ocean” of water vapor was injected into the inner solar system, the problem disappears.

What problem? So far he's constructed a couple strawmen that were hardly a mystery or a problem.

But he consistently forgets the Magic Bunnies!

PREDICTION 24: Soil in “erosion” channels on Mars will contain traces of earthlike soluble compounds, such as salt from Earth’s preflood subterranean chambers. Soil far from “erosion” channels will not. (This prediction was first published in April 2001. Salt was first discovered on Mars in March 2004.79)

OHMYGOSH! "SALT" on Mars??? Whoulda thunk it! Oh, and by-the-by, which salt, specifically was Mr.Brown amazed to be found on Mars? It's a terrestrial planet it probably has many of the same ions we have here, so I wonder what the mystery was here.

And, the reason salts may not have been "discovered" on Mars was because it wasn't until 2003 that we had a Rover capable of chemical analyses on the surface.

I suspect the only person who was amazed to see "salt" discovered on Mars was, well, Mr. Brown and the people who read him and think him knowledgeable in something.

To form comets in space, should we start with water as a solid, liquid, or gas?
Gas. In space, gases (such as water vapor) will expand into the vacuum if not gravitationally bound to some large body. Gases by themselves would not contract to form a comet. Besides, the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation breaks water vapor into hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), and hydroxyl (OH). Comets would not form from gases.
Solid. Comets might form by the combining of smaller ice particles, including ice condensed as frost on microscopic dust grains that somehow formed. However, one icy dust grain could not capture another unless their speeds and directions were nearly identical and one of the particles had a rapidly expanding sphere of influence or a gaseous envelope. Because ice molecules are loosely bound to each other, collisions among ice particles would fragment, scatter, and vaporize them—not merge them.
Liquid. Large rocks and muddy water were expelled by the fountains of the great deep. The water would partially evaporate, leave dirt behind, rapidly radiate its heat to cold outer space, and freeze. (Outer space has an effective temperature of nearly absolute zero, -460°F.) The dirt crust encasing the ice would prevent complete evaporation. (Recall that the nucleus of Halley’s comet was black, and a comet’s tail contains dust particles.)"
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets10.html

This guy really needs to read THIS LINK

Maybe he could just change his name to "Dr. Strawman"

Sheesh.

Oh, and by the way, Dad, I don't expect you to respond to this post with any real thought. I suspect you'll just regress into your "Different Past" model, but I will point out to you your beloved Walt Brown did use quite a bit of "regular PO" science to come up with his weird guesses.

How selective will you have to be to make it all fit together and make a point?

Which parts of water were in a "different" state? Which parts of gravity were "different"?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Split Rock
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Where do you find this "stuff"? ^_^



IF you insist on the Bible being literally true in Genesis. Yes, I'm sure it is.

Great. So it is interesting.



INFINITELY better than having to face the possibility that parts of Genesis are allegorical mythology stories!

True, why face things that have no ability to be backed up, such as your insinuation about Genesis?



Sure, why not? Don't forget SPACE WORMS. They have been hypothesized to burrow into other planets! And they are the sworn enemies of Magic Bunnies!

You can claim what you like, whether it is that snowballs brought all water to earth, or whatever. So far, I don't see you presenting evidence against Walt's claims.


Uh, well, that's assuming a huge chunk of the universe's water is located here, yeah. But then you'd have to be pretty stupid to assume that, considering the vastness of space and the relative abundance of hydrogen and oxygen in such vastness.

I think it was focusing on the known solar system, and planets.

Just a tick, what do the folks at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory have to say on this topic:
emphasis added

Strawman. What does water in the universe have to do with the thread???

Gosh. Who should I believe? The NRAO or Walt Brown, mechanical engineer? Hmmmm.

About the flood waters? Why the folks you cite seem unaware, and one would be hard pressed to find God in any of their knowledge. No??

Well, again, there are some explanations for this "mystery"



GOSH! Do you think water ice can exist at such low temperatures on "hot Mercury"? (Maybe he should worry more about sublimation at these temperatures!)

Well, I think the point was how the water got there, not how long it might be able to stay there? Especially the craters on planets that are not near the poles.

Maybe if Walt Brown would read some science once in a while? This was pretty easy to find. I'm sure he could have one of his literate friends "Google" some stuff for him?

Maybe you should address his issues, rather than invent them?

What problem? So far he's constructed a couple strawmen that were hardly a mystery or a problem.

Explanations for the ice and water, and impacts are anything but strawmen, they deal in actual evidences. We know there is ice, and craters, etc. Can you show us where Walt was really talking about some polar crevices??? That is silly.


OHMYGOSH! "SALT" on Mars??? Whoulda thunk it! Oh, and by-the-by, which salt, specifically was Mr.Brown amazed to be found on Mars? It's a terrestrial planet it probably has many of the same ions we have here, so I wonder what the mystery was here.

Didn't he posit the point it may have been from earth, except for stuff far from the channels? Care to address the actual gist of what he talks about, rather than express confidence that some fantasy old age creation explanation for the planets might also cover it??


And, the reason salts may not have been "discovered" on Mars was because it wasn't until 2003 that we had a Rover capable of chemical analyses on the surface.

Right, I think that should be obvious. Now, is there the same degree of salt far from the channels, or not??

This guy really needs to read THIS LINK

I looked at it, and found it started with this, and never backed it up. Why would anyone read fairy tales like that. when they want science??
"
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Comets formed out of a dense cloud of gas and dust that circled the nascent Sun. That much is known."

Pretty shabby, shallow, and shameful!!
A real disgrace.
[/FONT][/FONT]

Oh, and by the way, Dad, I don't expect you to respond to this post with any real thought. I suspect you'll just regress into your "Different Past" model, but I will point out to you your beloved Walt Brown did use quite a bit of "regular PO" science to come up with his weird guesses.

Right, which was his mistake. But he still has some good thoughts, and possibilities.

How selective will you have to be to make it all fit together and make a point?

Which parts of water were in a "different" state? Which parts of gravity were "different"?

If gravity were, in effect, somewhat less than today, that would mean that getting away from earth would be easier. Why, got some proof it was the same at the time???
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You can claim what you like, whether it is that snowballs brought all water to earth, or whatever. So far, I don't see you presenting evidence against Walt's claims.


But I did, didn't I?


I think it was focusing on the known solar system, and planets.



Strawman. What does water in the universe have to do with the thread???


ALERT: The earth is IN the universe.


Well, I think the point was how the water got there, not how long it might be able to stay there?

Is that why Walt said:

"Ice on the Moon, and certainly on hot Mercury, should disappear faster than comets deposit it today"

:D

Maybe you should address his issues, rather than invent them?

I did address them. You seem incapable of handling the fact that your new bestest buddy in poorly-thought-out science, Walt, might have missed a point or two.

Explanations for the ice and water, and impacts are anything but strawmen, they deal in actual evidences. We know there is ice, and craters, etc. Can you show us where Walt was really talking about some polar crevices??? That is silly.


That's kinda the point, Massengill. He DIDN'T talk about the craters and crevices. He talked about "hot Mercury" and how water should leave it. Where do you think the scientists found most of the water on Mercury?

the top of the image indicates strong radar reflection at Mercury's north pole. In fact, it resembles the strong radar echo seen from the ice-rich polar caps of Mars. (SOURCE)

Jeez, at least GLANCE at the links before you blather about them.



Didn't he posit the point it may have been from earth, except for stuff far from the channels? Care to address the actual gist of what he talks about, rather than express confidence that some fantasy old age creation explanation for the planets might also cover it??


All I saw was some "prediction" followed by "salt was first discovered on Mars in 2004". Wahoo. Maybe I'll address his substantive points when he makes some!



Right, I think that should be obvious. Now, is there the same degree of salt far from the channels, or not??

Who cares about HOW MUCH salt there is? We think water may have flowed on Mars. Mars, like the earth is in the universe where there's plenty of water to put on planets.


Remember, Dad, science involves details and some things you can't just wish away because it might make you question the literal nature of every single word in your favoritest book.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
[/color]

But I did, didn't I?

No, of course not. Rather than address, even the issues he rose, you skirted around them, by looking at the poles of a planet being able to keep ice, or alluding to some other explanation for salt existing, etc. Hardly evidence that Walt's claims were somehow wrong.


[/color]

ALERT: The earth is IN the universe.

So are all the other dry planets we know of, as opposed to the water planet.



Is that why Walt said:

"Ice on the Moon, and certainly on hot Mercury, should disappear faster than comets deposit it today"

:D
Normally that seems to be the case. If we took either flood comets, or any comets, and directed them to the poles of Mercury, why, that is another matter. Not something I think Walt thought about at the time, or that science had really dealt with. No?
Generally, on most of Mars, or Mercury, if we slap down a floodberg, it just wouldn't last all that long. That was the issue.




I did address them. You seem incapable of handling the fact that your new bestest buddy in poorly-thought-out science, Walt, might have missed a point or two.
No, I pay attention, generally. What you may have thought was some clever answer may not be as relative as you suspected.

That's kinda the point, Massengill. He DIDN'T talk about the craters and crevices. He talked about "hot Mercury" and how water should leave it. Where do you think the scientists found most of the water on Mercury?
In a place where it would not burn away, as it did on most of the planet??


All I saw was some "prediction" followed by "salt was first discovered on Mars in 2004". Wahoo. Maybe I'll address his substantive points when he makes some!
The gist of the claim and prediction from the man, was that the floodbergs did the impact craters, and left water on the planets, that got evaporated away fairly fast. I don't think a claim was made that the poles might not retain water longer, get serious.
Who cares about HOW MUCH salt there is? We think water may have flowed on Mars. Mars, like the earth is in the universe where there's plenty of water to put on planets.

Ah, so now you seem to be trying to back peddle, and allow for salt to be from water in the channels, as Walt suggested. Fine.



Remember, Dad, science involves details and some things you can't just wish away because it might make you question the literal nature of every single word in your favoritest book.
Details like where did the craters come from, the flood waters go, and etc. Seems to me science assumes there was no flood, and that the universe cascaded out of a speck, creating the planets, and refers to that tale as if it were fact, in explaining stuff. Pathetic. Real science can do better than that.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
How is that not meaningful? It's a serious question, why can't water suddenly arise from the reaction between hydrogen and oxygen?


Well, if we first arrange a place for the reaction to happen, and supply the materials, we can do er. But what is the point, in relation to Walt Brown's scenario?? Does that address whether it is scientifically impossible?

Are you suggesting it is fine with you, that thousands of meteoric missiles from under the earth fired up into the solar system? Or, that you think there is some reason it could not have happened? Or, that if it dis, the idea that the water could not last long on a planet, is a wrong notion, (except for the poles, or other exceptions)?

I mean, you need to get the material there for a reaction, somehow.
 
Upvote 0

sinan90

Member
Jan 20, 2008
172
13
Cambridge, UK
✟7,967.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
No what I'm saying is why does the water have to originate from the earth, there's hydrogen and oxygen all across the universe.

You're starting with the premise that the water seen elsewhere has to come from the earth, at least in the majority, but I don't see what that should be true. There's nothing to suggest it. Unless you just look for some hare-brained idea to magic away the waters form an alleged global flood.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No what I'm saying is why does the water have to originate from the earth, there's hydrogen and oxygen all across the universe.

You're starting with the premise that the water seen elsewhere has to come from the earth, at least in the majority, but I don't see what that should be true. There's nothing to suggest it. Unless you just look for some hare-brained idea to magic away the waters form an alleged global flood
.


Oh. So you have no reason to say that the water did not come from the biggest source of water in our solar system. Your point is that, theoretically, somehow, it could be produced by a chemical reaction. OK. But I don't see a lot of water channels on mars forming at the moment, do you??

Why is that? Seems to me that Walt's ideas provide a bible oriented explanation that agrees with the evidence, not just some wishy washy maybe waybe mumbo maybe jumbo.
 
Upvote 0

ReverendDG

Defeater of Dad and AV1611VET
Sep 3, 2006
2,548
124
44
✟10,901.00
Faith
Pantheist
Politics
US-Others
Oh. So you have no reason to say that the water did not come from the biggest source of water in our solar system. Your point is that, theoretically, somehow, it could be produced by a chemical reaction. OK. But I don't see a lot of water channels on mars forming at the moment, do you??
do you see hydrogen and oxygen on mars? if not its not bloody likely to form water now is it?
i find it laughable you have no idea how water forms:doh:

Why is that? Seems to me that Walt's ideas provide a bible oriented explanation that agrees with the evidence, not just some wishy washy maybe waybe mumbo maybe jumbo.

its a ad hoc nonsensical answer to something he knows nothing about.
of course you believe it, it doesn't disrupt your belief about space water
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
do you see hydrogen and oxygen on mars? if not its not bloody likely to form water now is it?
i find it laughable you have no idea how water
forms
If it is so unlikely, what are the channels carved from? The water had to come from somewhere. Maybe Walt's idea is as good as the next guys.



its a ad hoc nonsensical answer to something he knows nothing about.
of course you believe it, it doesn't disrupt your belief about space water
If he knows so little, and you apparently think you know so much, tell us here and now why the water in our solar system could not have it's major source as being from the water planet in this neck o the woods? Have you anything at all to say, in the way of intelligent comment, that is science based??


Now, Walt envisioned that the cause of the waters being taken off the earth, and debris, etc was because of the fountains of the deep. While I find the basic idea interesting, I could see other forces and mechanisms at work at the time.

We do know that the heavens opened, to drop the water to begin with.
One biblical indication that the waters went back up into space, or the heaves is right here.

Gen 8:3 - And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

Returned to space, or the heavens, in other words!!!!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AintNoMonkey

Regular Member
Jan 24, 2008
948
63
Midwest US
✟16,426.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
If it is so unlikely, what are the channels carved from? The water had to come from somewhere. Maybe Walt's idea is as good as the next guys.

Except that it's not. His idea is fecal waste, mainly because there is no mechanism for blasting off thousands of meteors from the earth's surface.

You want to know why there is a higher amount of salt in stream beds on mars (I haven't seen the data, so I'm not even sure this is true. source?)? Most likely it's because water that formed on mars flowed through/over salt-containing rocks. Oh suprise! Many salts are highly soluble in water, so it is no suprise that we see chemicals that have an affinity for dissolving in water concentrated in areas where there is a lot of water.


If he knows so little, and you apparently think you know so much, tell us here and now why the water in our solar system could not have it's major source as being from the water planet in this neck o the woods?

No mechanism of transport to other planets. Why don't you go ahead and propose a process that fits with current, observed physics and solves this problem? Back it up with some numbers, please. Also, the term 'water planet' is a misnomer. We don't call Earth 'the iron planet' or 'the nickle planet', even though these substances out-weigh water significantly on/in our planet.

Have you anything at all to say, in the way of intelligent comment, that is science based?

Have you? [Hint: There's a right answer to this question, and it starts with an 'N' and ends with an 'o chance in hell'.]


Edit: Ok, well I guess you've just backed me up by inserting this:

We do know that the heavens opened, to drop the water to begin with.
One biblical indication that the waters went back up into space, or the heaves is right here.

Gen 8:3 - And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

Returned to space, or the heavens, in other words!!!!

into a thread that is ostensably about science. Evoking god/the bible/supernatural/magicians in science is instafail.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Except that it's not. His idea is fecal waste, mainly because there is no mechanism for blasting off thousands of meteors from the earth's surface.

Ah!! So, if we have a same state past, then you feel it would be difficult. That is no problem, however, since we do not know that is the case!
You want to know why there is a higher amount of salt in stream beds on mars (I haven't seen the data, so I'm not even sure this is true. source?)? Most likely it's because water that formed on mars flowed through/over salt-containing rocks. Oh suprise! Many salts are highly soluble in water, so it is no suprise that we see chemicals that have an affinity for dissolving in water concentrated in areas where there is a lot of water.


So, your conjecture is that there somehow was water there, and, just like floodbergs would have, it mysteriously left salt in the channels!!! OK. Where did the water come from, and where did it go, precisely??




No mechanism of transport to other planets. Why don't you go ahead and propose a process that fits with current, observed physics and solves this problem? Back it up with some numbers, please. Also, the term 'water planet' is a misnomer. We don't call Earth 'the iron planet' or 'the nickle planet', even though these substances out-weigh water significantly on/in our planet.
If there is something like 9 times the surface land mass in water here, the water planet is an apt phrase. Do you see such amounts on mars or the moon, etc?? If the shoe fits...



Have you? [Hint: There's a right answer to this question, and it starts with an 'N' and ends with an 'o chance in hell'.

What proof do you have for such a claim??

Edit: Ok, well I guess you've just backed me up by inserting this:



into a thread that is ostensably about science. Evoking god/the bible/supernatural/magicians in science is instafail.


The bible is part of real science, this is news?? No reason to exclude such juicy, exclusive news tidbits from the unknown to man past at all. If there was, you could show us. If the bible says the waters returned to space, I believe it, unless you come up with real science that gives us reason to have to dismiss it. You want to invoke magic lifeforms, and universe in a magic speck, and magically appearing water carving channels on planets, and etc. It is you that are dealing in myths and fables, and that is patently obvious.
 
Upvote 0

ChordatesLegacy

Senior Member
Jun 21, 2007
1,896
133
64
✟17,761.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Perhaps the watery world is not Earth, but Jupiter’s moon Europa. It has ~1.09 x 10^10 km^3 of water whereas earth has 1.37 x 10^9 km^3 of water.

This means Europa has ~ 8 times the water found on earth.

Ho my god that is where all the water went Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

I think we should start a thread on the possible life forms below the ice on Europa.

Europa_life.jpg
 
Upvote 0

AirPo

with a Touch of Grey
Oct 31, 2003
26,359
7,214
60
✟169,357.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The HI theory in action!

First Law - It's easy to make things up.
If the pre flood, and flood earth were in a different state, it would be easy to get material out of earth's orbit. This seems to be a good possible explanation of where the flood waters went.


Second Law - Never underestimate the power of the wave.
You can't address the issue in a meaningful way. Fine.
:wave:
 
Upvote 0

AintNoMonkey

Regular Member
Jan 24, 2008
948
63
Midwest US
✟16,426.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Ah!! So, if we have a same state past, then you feel it would be difficult. That is no problem, however, since we do not know that is the case!

Evidence (all of it) from the past indicates same-state past, so infering otherwise without evidence is unscientific and illogical. This is where you fail.



So, your conjecture is that there somehow was water there, and, just like floodbergs would have, it mysteriously left salt in the channels!!! OK. Where did the water come from, and where did it go, precisely??

My conjecture is that there is water there because it was present upon the planet's formation. I EXPLAINED the process by which salt would be concentrated in channels, so it is not 'mysterious' as you say, and it also eliminates the need for your so-called 'floodbergs'. A brush-up on reading comprehension would serve you well. Or maybe a new pair of spectacles, since your eyes (and mind, for that matter) seem to be decaying with old age.

The water came from original formation of the planet, and is now concentrated at the poles, and is likely also concentrated in groundwater systems.


If there is something like 9 times the surface land mass in water here, the water planet is an apt phrase. Do you see such amounts on mars or the moon, etc?? If the shoe fits...

Understand that the maximum depth of the ocean is several km, while the radius of the earth is 6400km. Volumetrically, water is a highly insignificant constituent of our planet. As has already been shown, other bodies in our solar system are more water-rich than earth, so the shoe does not, in fact, fit.


What proof do you have for such a claim??

Every post I've ever seen from you provides evidence to my claim, so it is the working and preferred theory. Go ahead and prove me wrong.


The bible is part of real science

No it is not.

No reason to exclude such juicy, exclusive news tidbits from the unknown to man past at all. If there was, you could show us. If the bible says the waters returned to space, I believe it, unless you come up with real science that gives us reason to have to dismiss it. You want to invoke magic lifeforms, and universe in a magic speck, and magically appearing water carving channels on planets, and etc. It is you that are dealing in myths and fables, and that is patently obvious.

This is hogwash and is a pretty solid indicator of your ability to resolve reality with the fictional book that your life revolves around. If your book doesn't fit the science, your book is wrong, plain and simple.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BrainHertz

Senior Member
Nov 5, 2007
564
28
Oregon
✟8,340.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Well, if we first arrange a place for the reaction to happen, and supply the materials, we can do er. But what is the point, in relation to Walt Brown's scenario?? Does that address whether it is scientifically impossible?

:scratch:

What do you think this is made of?




Hint: this is not a "true color" image. Each of the red, green and blue channels is actually from a spectral emission line of a particular element. Can you guess what two of those three might be?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0