Where did all the Flood water go?

PROBLEMS WITH PLATE TECTONICS

Now let us consider some of the problems of the standard plate-tectonics model that, in fact, have motivated the search for an alternative model such as the expanding earth. One problem is how to move continents around (Kundt and Jessner 1986, Loper 1985, Lowman 1985a, Pavoni 1986, Runcorn 1980, Walzer and Maaz 1983). No good mechanism has been devised to push or pull them about. Further, recent evidence suggests that some of the continents have deep roots, going down as deep as 700 km (Kerr 1986, Lay 1988, Lowman 1985a). The movement of plates with such deep roots seems so incredible that a fixed-earth plate-tectonic model has recently been proposed that requires subduction zones which have not been suspected heretofore and for which there is little evidence (Lowman 1985b, Lowman 1986, Martin 1987, Schmidt and Embleton 1986).

Scientific Link

OOps... time to work on the THEORY some more

More problem with Plate tectonics theory.

Another difficulty is that both the African and the Antarctic tectonic plates are almost completely surrounded by spreading ridges with no significant subduction zones on their boundaries (Bevis and Payne 1983; Carey 1976, p. 57; Carey 1983c; Carey 1988, pp. 174-176; Karig 1978). Consequently, the subduction zones available to accommodate the spreading are not near by; and these expansion ridges themselves would have to migrate toward distant subduction zones. In fact, models of relative plate motions have not been unambiguously established yet, particularly for the circum-Pacific (Kamp and Fitzgerald 1987).

www.grisda.org...

Expanding earth.... EVIDENCE FOR EXPANDING EARTH

Maps are what initiated the development of plate tectonics. And maps provide motivation for the expanding-earth model (Carey 1988, pp. 93, 166, 167). A casual glance at a globe of the earth suggests that the east coasts of North and South America might nicely fit against the west coasts of Africa and Europe. Such fits have been made, first of all by sliding cutouts of continents around on a globe, now by computer simulations. Good fits can be obtained. The differences obtained by different cartographers are due to such considerations as how much of the continental shelves are included with the continents and different interpretations of paleomagnetic data (Chatterjee and Hotton III 1986; Hartnady 1988; Jackson 1988; Lawver 1984; Powell, Johnson and Veevers 1980; Rickard and Belbin 1980; Stock and Molnar 1987). Typically, even with the best fits, there are some overlaps and/or gaps between the continents when the fits are made on a globe scaled to the present size of the earth. Carey, Owen and others have noticed that they could improve the fits and avoid a questionable Tethys ocean if the continents were cut out and fitted on a smaller globe (Carey 1976, pp. 27,40; Carey 1988, pp. 143, 164-167; Crawford 1986; Harland 1979; Owen 1979; Owen 1983a, p. 3; Owen 1984; Schmidt and Embelton 1981; Vogel 1984). This suggests an earth that has expanded over time. Carey, who has been most aggressive with this argument, suggests that the earth had a radius of about 60% of its current value during the Jurassic era, and hence no subduction need to occur.Another Scientific Link.

Another argument for an expanding earth is that all the present ocean floors are geologically young (Carey 1976, p. 53; Carey 1988, pp. 147, 186; Glikson 1980; Vogel 1984). With the plate-tectonic model, it is presumed this is because older oceanic crust has been subducted (Scholl and Vallier 1983, Smith 1985). So an area equivalent to the Pacific Ocean is usually assumed to have been subducted under the Americas since the Jurassic with no debris or remnants of older oceanic crust left behind. Glikson states, "I am unaware of any constant radius models capable of accounting for the nature of about three fourths of the earth's crust during Precambrian time" (Glikson 1979). The expanding earth provides a natural explanation: the ocean floors are just the new surface that has emerged during the expansion process.

The Geoscience Research Institute (GRI), located on the campus of Loma Linda University in California, is an official institute of the Seventh-day Adventist Church which engages in creation science, and serves the church in the areas of research and communication. Seven researchers are employed by the Institute.

A creationist institute?? Credible sources only, please. You might as well be using the Bible as evidence

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by john_bmth

 

What do their names have anything to do with someones interest and study in a THEORY? Which theory are you illusioned to as being fact? Eh john?

edit on 21-7-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

1) A scientific theory explains scientific facts. Using the "it's only a theory" line only serves to highlight your ignorance.
2) Names are very important. It's a yardstick of credibility. If these geologist friends of yours are affiliated with that creationist institute you linked above, they have no credibility.

reply to post by john_bmth


John, you are just like a devout christian and you should learn something from this. Your BELIEFS in theories that have yet to be proven are based on FAITH that scientists are like Gods amongst men deciding for you what is true or not what is right or wrong based on their beliefs and faiths or theories. So therefore you are a follower of a belief and faith in science. Some people call all that complexity GOD. Let them and most of all think for your self man.

Whats so different from you and everyone? What makes you out of 6 Billion others so special in your views? Nothing. Stop pitting faiths and theories against other faiths and beliefs. Its stupid.

Originally posted by john_bmth

The Geoscience Research Institute (GRI), located on the campus of Loma Linda University in California, is an official institute of the Seventh-day Adventist Church which engages in creation science, and serves the church in the areas of research and communication. Seven researchers are employed by the Institute.

A creationist institute?? Credible sources only, please. You might as well be using the Bible as evidence

Excellent find john_bmth.

Those snakes will use any Theory and purposefully twist it to substantiate their theory. They can be vocal and strident but they may as well be pissing into the wind for they just don't seem to understand the processes at all. I doubt if any have actually heard of the Phoenix Plate, let alone actually understand the processes of Plate tectonics including subduction and spreading. Think about Matthews and Vine, think about back arc volcanism, think about palaeomagnetics, palaeontology, orogenies, plate boundaries etc. It's come a long way since Wegener first posited an idea and frankly the only ones who do not subscribe to it are the twits who are trying to salvage their careers.
Try a little palinspastic reproduction using both the expanding Earth theory and the Theory of Plate Tectonics. Hopeful creationists do not good geologists make.

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by byteshertz

 

The current scientific theories (note scientific theories are not guesses, they are fact) on the origin and dynamics of our planet work in a universe with the laws of physics. Competing theories (really they shouldn't be called theories since they haven't been tested and retested) do not work in a universe with the laws of physics.

Science can do all of those things. Cite, the closed universe model and dark matter.

Science is reality, it doesn't matter how we perceive reality, it doesn't matter what we can measure. Science is science.

Fact, really! I didn't think there was such a thing. It seems measurements change occasionally.

70% of earth is covered by water that we can see. The other percentage is below ground and contained in ice caps. Every culture has a global flood myth. So, if it wasn't global, the water covered a large portion of earth or moved to other areas of earth. I'm interested in myth. www.nwcreation.net...

Ancient earth was a barren waterworld. www.newscientist.com...

Originally posted by aorAki

A creationist institute?? Credible sources only, please. You might as well be using the Bible as evidence

Excellent find john_bmth.

Those snakes will use any Theory and purposefully twist it to substantiate their theory

Wow. So if a nuclear scientist goes to church then nuclear physics doesnt exist by your rational. That is just ignorance at its highest level. Think about it. Small view of the world shows small view of the mind.

You didnt even read the scientific information. They also debunk expanding earth you spazz. Read the sources before commenting in such a juvenile way. Kids today.....:duh Bill Mundy Professor of Physics not christian physics... omg..... Wheres the ignore button...

Here is the source again . www.grisda.org...

reply to post by Freelancer


god drank them....

reply to post by Freelancer


I waded through 9 pages of this thread (pun intended) and thought I would add this.

The mass of the oceans is approximately 1.35×1018 metric tons, or about 1/4400 of the total mass of the Earth. The oceans cover an area of 3.618×108 km2 with a mean depth of 3,682 m, resulting in an estimated volume of 1.332×109 km3.[101] If all the land on Earth were spread evenly, water would rise to an altitude of more than 2.7 km

Earth Hydrosphere

abundance of water on Earth’s surface (in ocean (Earth feature)) ...the elevated land could be hidden under the oceans and the Earth reduced to a smooth sphere that would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres deep. This is known as the sphere depth of the oceans and serves to underscore the abundance of water on the Earth’s surface.

Sphere Depth of the Ocean

Seams like there is enough water to cover the Earth under the right conditions.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by aorAki

A creationist institute?? Credible sources only, please. You might as well be using the Bible as evidence

Excellent find john_bmth.

Those snakes will use any Theory and purposefully twist it to substantiate their theory

Wow. So if a nuclear scientist goes to church then nuclear physics doesnt exist by your rational. That is just ignorance at its highest level. Think about it. Small view of the world shows small view of the mind.

You didnt even read the scientific information. They also debunk expanding earth you spazz. Read the sources before commenting in such a juvenile way. Kids today.....:duh Bill Mundy Professor of Physics not christian physics... omg..... Wheres the ignore button...

Here is the source again . www.grisda.org...

edit on 21-7-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

I did read it, you spazz.

Hey kiddo, have a look at this: Bill Mundy

I stand by my claims, little fella.

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by Freelancer

 

I waded through 9 pages of this thread (pun intended) and thought I would add this.

The mass of the oceans is approximately 1.35×1018 metric tons, or about 1/4400 of the total mass of the Earth. The oceans cover an area of 3.618×108 km2 with a mean depth of 3,682 m, resulting in an estimated volume of 1.332×109 km3.[101] If all the land on Earth were spread evenly, water would rise to an altitude of more than 2.7 km

Earth Hydrosphere

abundance of water on Earth’s surface (in ocean (Earth feature)) ...the elevated land could be hidden under the oceans and the Earth reduced to a smooth sphere that would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres deep. This is known as the sphere depth of the oceans and serves to underscore the abundance of water on the Earth’s surface.

Sphere Depth of the Ocean

Seams like there is enough water to cover the Earth under the right conditions.

Thank you. I've been trying to find the information on this. It seems, all you have to do anymore is pretend there's not an answer to your question and redirect people in a different direction, to get your worldview pushed. The OP was pretending the facts in his OP were pointing to not enough water, using an illusion of a 2-D picture. The picture actually represents quite a bit of water.

Who else finds it hilarious that people quote a professor of PHYSICS when the subject is GEOLOGY?

I studied economics and real estate, so in my opinion, I'm the perfect person to make groundbreaking statements about nuclear physics

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Who else finds it hilarious that people quote a professor of PHYSICS when the subject is GEOLOGY?

I studied economics and real estate, so in my opinion, I'm the perfect person to make groundbreaking statements about nuclear physics

You studied economics and real estate, so you are the perfect person to make statements about evolution, the Bible and the nature of our existence?

Ah, the irony.

What you seem to be an expert on, is jamming as many phrases like "silly" , "zero evidence" and laughing faces into a thread as possible.


In my earlier post I showed there is apparently enough water to cover the earth.

The picture in the OP is interesting, but a more accurate picture for the purposes of the discussion would be one that shows a picture of the Hydrosphere in relation to the Lithosphere.

How much paint does it take to coat your walls or your automobile?

Does one calculate the total mass of the House or Automobile when determining paint coverage?

Or do we calculate surface area?

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by john_bmth

 

John, you are just like a devout christian and you should learn something from this. Your BELIEFS in theories that have yet to be proven are based on FAITH that scientists are like Gods amongst men deciding for you what is true or not what is right or wrong based on their beliefs and faiths or theories. So therefore you are a follower of a belief and faith in science. Some people call all that complexity GOD. Let them and most of all think for your self man.

Whats so different from you and everyone? What makes you out of 6 Billion others so special in your views? Nothing. Stop pitting faiths and theories against other faiths and beliefs. Its stupid.

edit on 21-7-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

No, I follow the scientific consensus because they have evidence.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder


Wow. So if a nuclear scientist goes to church then nuclear physics doesnt exist by your rational. That is just ignorance at its highest level. Think about it. Small view of the world shows small view of the mind.

Your argument is a straw man. I have never said that a belief in a god and a training in science are mutually exclusive. There's a difference between having a belief in God and actually letting that belief become a major conflict of interest. A "geologist" who works at a creationist has a conflict of interest because they start with the presupposition that the biblical description of events is factually accurate and then proceed to distort/fabricate evidence to support that belief. Big difference. It's like me reading the Harry Potter books and setting up a "research" institute with the sole aim of trying to lend credibility to the Harry Potter narrative. It's ridiculous and not science.

You didnt even read the scientific information. They also debunk expanding earth you spazz. Read the sources before commenting in such a juvenile way. Kids today.....:duh Bill Mundy Professor of Physics not christian physics... omg..... Wheres the ignore button...

Show me the science and I'll read it, not the blatherings from a creationist website.

Here is the source again . www.grisda.org...

edit on 21-7-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

Posting it twice doesn't make it any more credible than the first time. You want to play the science game then play by the rules. Otherwise, it isn't science. Peer-reviewed research from credible journals.

reply to post by dusty1


You might have noticed that I back up my claims with source links most of the time. Sources that HAVE studied stuff in detail. But when I'm looking for information about plate tectonics, I look at data and info from geologists rather than people who studied physics or biology BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE.

This guy studied physics, but makes statements about a field he hasn't even studied, and he isn't using information from geologists to back up his claims either

For example, if someone here claims that the earth is only 10k years old, I can prove to him that's complete and utter nonsense. Not because I studied a field that involves radiometric dating, but because thanks to the Internet and books you can actually look that stuff up. You can read up on what the experts have to say...and in this particular case, that creationist hogwash site is using the unfounded claims of a PHYSICS PROFESSOR to make statements about a completely unrelated field

reply to post by Shadow Herder


The expanding Earth theory has been debunked for decades. The evidence against it is overwhelming. The more detail we learn about the oceans and the more seismic evidence that is collected the more that plate tectonics is confirmed.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

The professional seasoned geologists I know personally do subscribe to it and believe me, where I live, they are world known.

Please name them. I do not believe you.

reply to post by aorAki


I want to add that I have attended a number of creationists lectures and been appalled at the amount of lying they do in front of the congregations that attend the lectures. These lecturers are not stupid. They are not making mistakes. They are purposely and willfully telling lies.

Examples of their lies:
1. Telling people that photos show shoe stitching of a sandal imprint crushing a trilobite.
2. Telling people that Aldous Huxley supported Darwin because he wanted to have a scientific reason to support his lifestyle. The lie is that it was Thomas Huxley that supported Darwin.

Creationists don't just twist the facts. They are blatant liars.