Where did all the Flood water go?

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

 

The Expanding Earth "Theory" (I use the word very loosely) does not make any scientific sense at all. The simple facts of the conservation of mass and the conservation of energy completely invalidate Expanding Earth.

Shhhhh!! No one cares about facts if they go against one's religious belief

I wasn't aware that the expanding earth theory was a religious belief, just a different theory on how the earth came to be in the state it is now.

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


The Expanding Earth "Theory" is no better than a religious belief because;
1) There is zero tangible evidence for it.
2) It breaks the laws of physics, namely the conservation of energy and the conservation of mass.


Just because you don't understand a theory doesn't mean that it is false or impossible or that a "God" is needed. Get over your ignorance already.

Plate tectonics works, Expanding Earth does not. This isn't hard to understand at all.

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

The Earth cannot just grow without new matter being created. Less than 4% of the Earth's mass is from post-Theia extraterrestrial material. The planet would need to be under constant large scale bombardment to grow in mass to the terms that EErs claim.

All it takes is for energy to be converted to mass. It is simple logic, really. Technically we can do that on a small scale now. No one really knows wtf is in the core of this planet, and what goes on in there.

Comets contain frozen water, yes, but it took millions upon millions of comets to give us our current oceans and any sufficiently large comet to bring enough water in at once to flood the Earth would also cause the entire surface of the Earth to be destroyed upon impact.

Or we could have been pelted over a period of time (perhaps 40 days and nights ). Or something could have hit the moon and knocked the water to earth.

Any number of things could have happened. To take the most extreme case to discount a whole theory is disingenuous and quite dishonest.

Any vapor canopy that is sufficiently voluminous enough to flood the Earth would block out a large percentage of sunlight and freeze the Earth.

Again, it did not have to be the main source of water. In fact, it could have been a very minor source, but a source none-the-less.

You cannot argue scientifically with God because god is not scientifically verifiable or even plausible. To say that "God took the water away" is the same as saying that "Santa brings you presents on Christmas".

No one even said anything about God. The Bible was used as a reference matter . . . because, really, besides speculation and conjecture (scientific theory is just speculation and conjecture that hasn't been proven wrong yet), what other choices do we have than tales from different cultures that are millenia old?

Science is a method, it is a changing, adapting tool.

Apparently not when its advocates go on witch hunts if it is not "peer reviewed" or approved for release by people who obviously know better than mere peons.

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

 

The Expanding Earth "Theory" is no better than a religious belief because;
1) There is zero tangible evidence for it.

There is evidence abounding. You just do not want to see it.

2) It breaks the (known) laws of physics, namely the conservation of energy and the conservation of mass.

Fixed for you. If something breaks the scientific theories, then the theories need to be rewritten. That is exactly the problem with science today.

If something does not follow what scientists know, it is wrong. It should be the opposite. Science is not infallible, as much as the scientists of the world wished it was.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


No, only to the scientifically illiterate is evidence in abounds. Show us the evidence. Not YouTube videos, not websites but proper, peer-reviewed science in credible journals. You want to talk science, see my sig.

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

 

The Expanding Earth "Theory" (I use the word very loosely) does not make any scientific sense at all. The simple facts of the conservation of mass and the conservation of energy completely invalidate Expanding Earth.

Shhhhh!! No one cares about facts if they go against one's religious belief

I wasn't aware that the expanding earth theory was a religious belief, just a different theory on how the earth came to be in the state it is now.

It's not a scientific theory...at best, it's a working hypothesis. For it to be a theory, it would require objective evidence supporting the claims. But there isn't any, just a bunch of pseudo-scientific blogs talking about stuff that is demonstrably wrong.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

Show us the evidence. Not YouTube videos, not websites but proper, peer-reviewed science in credible journals.

I already alluded to some of those previously here. I didn't try to go out and find them all but merely showed that this information can be found if you look for it. Neal Adams didn't create this belief out of thin air. He made the videos you can find on YouTube or his site based on reading the work of others.

Again no one is saying that this is proven science. The question was asked "Where did all the Flood water go?" and I merely noted that this was one possible theory. We're not calling for the replacement of all science textbooks. Just having an interesting discussion. Honestly, does everything need to be "peer reviewed" to be discussed? I'm just imagining what it would be like in the real world. [Person #1]"Hey, this is the best BBQ sauce ever!" [Person #2]"What? Do you have any peer reviewed scientific journals that agree that your BBQ sauce is the best?". I don't know how some of you guys have actual conversations without carrying around stacks of the latest Scientific American.

Some of this does sound fantastic but then some of it does explain other issues. For instance how did dinosaurs gets so big without having gravity crush their joints? What if the Earth were smaller at that time? Then that issue goes away. That's a supposition, not a claim of absolute science. So to state that we have the same amount of water, but the earth has grown in circumference so we don't notice it now, that is a supposition too.

One further interesting thing of note I wanted to throw in. Check out Genesis 10:25. Here we have it in the Bible. A passage that speaks of the splitting up of the continents or something of that nature.

Two sons were born to Eber:
One was named Peleg*, because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan.

*Peleg means division

EDIT: I wonder if Aristarchus of Samos had to wait for peer reviews to talk about how the Earth rotated the sun? But we were all ignorant then and we know all now.

reply to post by dbates


I ask you again: show us the evidence. Not YouTube videos, not websites but proper, peer-reviewed science in credible journals.

reply to post by john_bmth

The words that are different colors and change to being underlined when the cursor hovers over them... those are hyper-links to other URLs (Uniform Resource Locator). Click on them and they take you places.


EDIT: Okay, once again just for you. Click me! CLICK HERE. (This was all brought up on page 2 of this discussion but no one reads half of what I post obviously)

reply to post by john_bmth


Thank you for proving my point.

Peer review science journals are not science. It is censorship. It is is a branding of "heretics" by the inquisition.

It is an epic fail.


Galileo surely was not peer reviewed, nor did he make an appearance in any approved scientific publications.

Originally posted by SG-17


. . .

Just because you don't understand a theory doesn't mean that it is false or impossible or that a "God" is needed. Get over your ignorance already.

Plate tectonics works, Expanding Earth does not. This isn't hard to understand at all.

Actually, plate tectonics does not explain many things, which expanding earth does.

You are all ass backwards in your blind support for peer reviews and science journals, as another poster put it.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Actually, plate tectonics does not explain many things, which expanding earth does.

I think you'll find that EE does not explain most things, which tectonics does

It's an interesting 'what if' exercise. But taking its starting point as Pangea, just 251ma, shows it was never meant to be taken seriously and quite obviously cannot explain most of the events in Earth's history.


Edit: actually I'm not sure it goes back even to 251ma (which come to think of it is the PT Extinction )

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Thank you for proving my point.

Peer review science journals are not science. It is censorship. It is is a branding of "heretics" by the inquisition.

It is an epic fail.


Galileo surely was not peer reviewed, nor did he make an appearance in any approved scientific publications.

edit on 7/20/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

Of course Galileo's work was peer reviewed since he came up with his theories and discoveries...his theories wouldn't be valid otherwise. I'm not exactly sure what you have against critical peer reviews, it makes sure people can't just make the most random claims (eg. expanding earth) without allowing others to challenge those claims. Of course religion doesn't like critical thinking and rather wants its followers to believe out of blind faith

Peer reviews aren't censorship, they are an integral part of scientific method and make sure errors are found, and that all claims are backed up by OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE rather than pure guesses, lies, or misinterpretation of data. The average scientific theory in astronomy survives less than 6mo before it has to be modified because of errors...until there's a final version that's been critically checked.

Critical thinking is better than blind faith

This should be a total no-brainer. Think about it, who's gonna spot more errors in a paper, one set of eyes, or 50 sets of eyes??

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by john_bmth

 

The words that are different colors and change to being underlined when the cursor hovers over them... those are hyper-links to other URLs (Uniform Resource Locator). Click on them and they take you places.


EDIT: Okay, once again just for you. Click me! CLICK HERE. (This was all brought up on page 2 of this discussion but no one reads half of what I post obviously)

edit on 20-7-2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-7-2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)

So you post a paper from a non peer-reviewed journal and a book? How about some peer-reviewed papers from credible journals pertinent to the field of study? That paper has 8 citations, all of them by the author. Thus, we have a non peer-reviewed paper whose only citations are by the very author of said paper! hardly compelling stuff.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Peer review science journals are not science.

Yes they are.

It is censorship.

No they are not.

It is is a branding of "heretics" by the inquisition.

Methinks you're getting confused with the Catholic inquisitio.

It is an epic fail.

Good sir, it is you who is the "epic fail" as you are using technology to communicate with people all around the world that was derived from peer-reviewed science. Not only that, but I'm sure you use a car or public transport, made it through childhood without succumbing to one of the many historically-nefarious diseases that peer-reviewed science has kept at bay and I'm sure you are more than happy to enjoy the modern comforts brought to you by, yup, peer-reviewed science.

Galileo surely was not peer reviewed, nor did he make an appearance in any approved scientific publications.

That's because they didn't exist in Galileo's time. More importantly, he produced irrefutable evidence.

Originally posted by john_bmth
So you post a paper from a non peer-reviewed journal and a book? How about some peer-reviewed papers from credible journals pertinent to the field of study?

If you read the entire thing you'll find that he has pages and pages of references to other scientific books/journals to support his work.

See what Dr. James Maxlow has to say. He has a PHD in geology and has bought into the expansion theory. I haven't actually watched his lecture yet but will do later today if I get the time. Yes it's a YouTube video but that doesn't take away that it's a lecture from someone who has a PHD in geology. I can show you a video of Obama's state of the union address on YouTube but that doesn't invalidate the speech.

There's lots of stuff out there on this. Just look around for a bit.

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

 

The Expanding Earth "Theory" is no better than a religious belief because;
1) There is zero tangible evidence for it.
2) It breaks the laws of physics, namely the conservation of energy and the conservation of mass.


Just because you don't understand a theory doesn't mean that it is false or impossible or that a "God" is needed. Get over your ignorance already.

Plate tectonics works, Expanding Earth does not. This isn't hard to understand at all.

I'm over my ignorance. Thanks for your concern though.

Again, I don't see how god or religion plays into the question of "where did the water go" or that either is needed.

Plate tectonics, as is currently understood, doesn't address this question yet, the expanding earth does.

I don't see how the laws of conservation of mass or energy play into what your saying seeing as how the earth is not entirely a closed system. It is constantly being bombarded by debris and radiation.

Peace

Originally posted by dbates
See what Dr. James Maxlow has to say. He has a PHD in geology and has bought into the expansion theory. I haven't actually watched his lecture yet but will do later today if I get the time. Yes it's a YouTube video but that doesn't take away that it's a lecture from someone who has a PHD in geology. I can show you a video of Obama's state of the union address on YouTube but that doesn't invalidate the speech.

There's lots of stuff out there on this. Just look around for a bit.

Mr Maxlow has a lot to say but I cannot find a single paper authored by him. Having a PhD in any field doesn't lend you much credibility. Publishing in credible journals, on the other hand, does. Notice I keep using the word "credible". There's lots of journals of varying quality, publishing in even peer-reviewed journals does not mean much at all if the quality of the journal is low (of which there are many journals like that). Old ground may be covered that isn't picked up on by the refs or the paper's contribution is tenuous at best, but the less credible journals will still publish it.

For any scientific stance, there's always someone fighting any given corner, no matter how fringe or controversial. Problem is, these people are usually on very shaky ground at best. This has nothing to do with the 'immutable scientific establishment' or what not because Einstein managed to turn physics on it's head in a very short time in the face of fierce competition from the old guard. The difference is, his position was very strong, so no matter how unpalatable his ideas were to the scientific consensus at the time, resistance was doomed to failure because he produced the goods.

Cheer-leading up academics holding fringe positions that don't hold up in the evidence department is a very bizarre phenomenon because you are in essence discounting a great deal of evidence and research for the consensus position when you have absolutely no qualifications in the field. I've used this analogy before on these boards but I'll use it again: if someone with absolutely no training, knowledge or experience were to cheer-lead a fringe and discredited position within my field of study, I could only look at them in utter bemusement. You CANNOT get any deep knowledge of any academic field by watching videos and reading articles/books written for the laymen. Period. You may get a high-level, superficial understanding but that's about it. How on earth they can cheer-lead such a position when they have absolutely no knowledge of the discipline? It's a laughable notion, yet it happens so often on these boards. It really is quite baffling.

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

Again, I don't see how god or religion plays into the question of "where did the water go" or that either is needed.

Plate tectonics, as is currently understood, doesn't address this question yet, the expanding earth does.

I have to ask again: What are you talking about???

We know for a FACT that a global flood didn't happen because there's ZERO evidence for it...so why are people even discussing where the water went? Like I've said before, that's like talking about the mating rituals of unicorns

Plate tectonics, as is currently understood, doesn't address this question yet, the expanding earth does.

What question???

reply to post by MrXYZ


Indeed, getting back on subject, the water didn't go anywhere because there was no water to go.

However, if anyone wishes to invoke a supernatural entity who made the water, then obviously they would just as easily have disposed of it. And ensured there was no geological or other evidence it ever existed. And no-one can possibly prove otherwise.

Of course, it's always possible that flood myths refer to various different local events (in the case of Mesopotamia/Canaan I lean towards a tropical cyclone hitting the Red Sea) and that the stone age peoples experiencing them just attributed such devastating event to a supernatural entity. Not unreasonable? And seeing their whole 'world' destroyed, recorded the event accordingly. Whether any actually were caused by a supernatural entity is another matter ....

Reply to post by john_bmth

My, God. You guys are reading from Inquisition manuals or something. That is almost exactly what the RCC said in the 14th century.

At least no one is being imprisoned this time around.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com