Oolon Colluphid

David, something else occurred to me.

These 'fountains of the deep' opened, yeah? Well ignoring that, as I've indicated, rather a lot of water would have to be produced... and that it must have come up under quite some pressure to counteract the weight of the water already on the openings (basically you're moving miles of ocean depth of water uphill)... ignoring that. These fountains eventually stopped, leaving the presumably cavernous places where the water had previously been empty. (Unless there was a literally limitless supply of water in 'the deep', somewhere must have been empty after it had all fountained upward.

So, uh, what stopped the water going back down these plug-holes?

Oolon

Coragyps

Oolon, Oolon, Oolon. You aren't staying up with the literature! Walt Brown, in his <a href="http://www.creationscience.com/" target="_blank">online magnum opus,</a> clearly states that the cavern collapsed when the fountains of the deep launched all the asteroids and comets and flooded the Earth. It's very much worth a read, if you first close your door and cover your keyboard with a spittle-proof dropcloth.

davidH

This explains how the Everest Mountain range formed. - The collision of one plate with another.
Therefore what if the Flood initiated the breakoff of india with then collided with Asia?

You cannot take the world today to be the world back then ie. The position of the land mass.

The Bible says that in the beginning the water was gathered to one place - does that not also seem to imply that the land was therefore gathered together in another place - not in seperate continents. This is again in agreement with the one land mass that is believe to have existed all those years ago.

- If this was the case then the one thing with a enough power to intiate the breaking up of the land mass was the Flood.
Once the flood had occurred - or during it the land mass broke up and began to seperate.
If as that article says it was india that hit the continent of Asia then it is hardly surprising that sediment exists on M.Everest - since the plate would have hit the egde of Asia which could only have been surrounded by sea - hence the reason why all the sediment and limestone is present.

Oolon, you are assuming that Everest was already present, or at least a mountain range whenever the flood occurred. But as I have shown it may have formed as a result of what the Flood did.

If this is not the case then is there a better explanation of why India happened to break off from the super continent - as well as Africa, S.America etc?

Surely you would agree that something that could split a supercontinent up into plates and propel them away from each other must have been something devastatingly powerful.

In respect to the world record rainfall amount - it's hardly surprising that an event on that scale would make the world record pale in comparision.

Yes I do know what dilution means Oolon - but you seem to have overlooked the fact that we are assuming that the water was previously salt water....hence when /or if it evaporated the salt would have been left behind.
So what if this salt then came into contact with water again .... salt water would form again. This could easily have compansated for the temporary dilution of the sea water.

So the dilution would begin occurring at the surface of the sea - I doubt if osmosis would have occurred that quickly - I guess the pressure of the water that far down might have an effect on osmosis too.

So you would expect a lot of marine life to die but because we don't know where the FOTD where, we don't know where the majority of the rain would have fallen. If it was under the land most would have fallen on the land mass and probably less on the sea.
But again I am only guessing here.


It does depend on where the FOTD where, maybe they were under the supercontinent, maybe it was out at sea somewhere.....I don't know and maybe no-one will know.

If it was out at sea and this giant explosion happened - water would evaporate, as well as tidal waves form etc.
If it happened under the superconitent the areas in the surrounding would be completely destroyed - further off the rain would fall causing a massive flood - maybe even enough force to cause the continents to start moving.

But this is only my own spectulation - the only reference in the Bible is that the Fountains of the Deep burst forth.

The fact that they burst forth is what makes it seem like a violent occurance.

Oolon, when I said that it raises the question of where the rain came from you wrote;

But Oolon you are ignoring a lot of evidience here without giving another more rational explanation for it.

1. The seperating of the continents from the supersontinent.

2. The reason why the ice age started.

3. Why meteriotites have frozen water in them and also perserved bacteria

etc, etc - Go to the site and answer help me get some more rational explanations for the evidience that he provides there.
Thanks.

Yeah, but you are assuming that the atmosphere was immediatly filled with steam at that temperature.
Since it originated from a particular place we are assuming that this mass of steam keeps billowing out and keeps on coming into contact with the cool (in comparision) air.

Wouldn't the steam as soon as it comes in contact with this cold air - immediatly turn to water and come down as massive rains?
If this is the case then maybe it is not so amazing to think that that much rain could actually have fallen.

True - maybe these could have been some of the trenches that we find in our oceans....- maybe some of the ocean floors collapsed inwards so allowing the extra water to be able to drain off into the sea again.
- I'm not sure, but I'll look up some stuff on oceans and see if I come across anything interesting.

Sorry about that Bait - I didn't actually know you could get private messages here =).
I checked it though and there was nothing in mine - maybe it got deleted or something.
- It would probably be easier if you just sent it to my hotmail account. But you could try again and see if I get it - I had asked that I be emailed if I got a message on the board but I never got emailed.

Ragnarok

Fountains of the deep David, fountains of the deep???

Lessee, these things would have opened up and started spewing the most amazing amounts of water out right? This would have created, around each fountain, a local and catastrophic flood. These floods would take a while to link up with each other and what you would see near each one would be evidence of that locally catastrophic flood such as what we see in the
<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/disaster/damburst.jsp" target="_blank">scablands</a> of the American west. But these features appear to have been created when an ice dam broke during the last ice age.

So where, exactly are the FOTD and, more to the point, where is the evidence of these catastrophic local floods that would still be observable today? Seems to me there should be scablands type features all over the planet. There are not.

Dave Cox

Originally posted by DavidH:

Four words for this assertion ---- Latent Heat of Condensation.

Latent heat of condensation (Lc): Refers to the heat gained by the air when water vapor changes into a liquid. Lc=2500 Joules per gram (J/g) of water or 600 calories per gram (cal/g) of water.


I think a little arithmetic is in order here. Anyone care to calculate how much heat was gained by the air as all of this steam from the fountains of the deep condensed into rain? I would venture a guess that the air would rapidly rise in temperature, ceasing the condensation of the steam and searing just about everyone on the ark. If not, where did all of the heat go? I don't think that the bible makes mention of the liquid nitrogen cooling coils surrounding the earth that would be required to remove that heat at a sufficient rate.

Just a thought.....

Coragyps

Dave Cox - Hi, welcome, and thanks for saying that before I did. Calculation will be out this afternoon if I can mine enough assumptions from Walt Brown's site to use.

davidH - Yes, geologists know about the Himalayas. They know about the cataclysmic collision of India with Asia. They know that this cataclysm has been going on for many millions of years, and is still going on. The speed at which India is plowing under Asia can be measured by GPS sensors; the speed at which the Himalayas are rising has been measured by radar interferometry. Igneous rocks interlayered with the sediments high in the Himalayas have been dated to millions of years ago by multiple methods. Walt Brown's silly-assed "Hydroplate Theory" is not supported by any of the observations that have been made over the last 200 years. I only bother to respond to it for two reasons:
1) You, and possibly some lurkers, have been misled and probably deliberately lied to by people like Brown, and
2) I have job-related duties to attend to this afternoon, and this postpones my starting on them.

Dave Cox

My preliminary calcs indicate that with water condensing(rain) to cover the earth to a depth of only 1 km, the ending average temperature of the atmosphere is 492F. Just a rough calculation, but the absurdity is obvious.

lpetrich

If there was one at all.

What do you mean?

Pangaea had existed 200 million years ago, not 4000 years ago; there was as much trace of a worldwide flood when it broke up as there is at any other time in the Earth's known history: none. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Furthermore, there is evidence that Pangaea had formed from the collisions of previous continents; these collisions had formed the Appalachian and Ural mountain ranges.

Pangaea was not the Earth's first supercontinent, there was one called Pannotia which existed around 600-550 million years ago, whose formation produced the "Pan-African orogeny", some old mountain ranges in Africa. And an even earlier one called Rodinia, of about 1.1-0.75 billion years ago. Pre-Rodinia history is difficult to reconstruct, but some geologists are valiantly attempting this task.

I'm not OC, but I'll answer: Pangaea was broken apart by its trapping heat; this caused mantle convection currents to move away from its interior, pulling it apart.

However, a flood would get very mixed up, meaning that saltwater sea life would have a hard time surviving. And this would happen no matter where the Fountains of the Deep had erupted.

DavidH, I invite you to do essentially the same thing: visit <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org</a> and check out its discussion of Flood Geology. Please tell us where you think that that discussion goes wrong. Unless you decide that you want to be liberated from the Procrustean bed of Flood Geology.

1. Breakup of Pangaea: see above.

2. Ice Ages started as a result of Antarctica being at the South Pole, and likely additional causes; we are currently in an interglacial, which results from the Earth getting a certain pattern of sunlight flux over the course of he year (the cause of the Milankovitch cycles).

3. The meteorites had come from the outer Solar System, where there is lots of ice. The bacteria are probably Earthly contamination.

Coragyps

Yeah, I missed a couple earlier - there has been no documented case of ET bacteria being found in a meteorite - the Martian case (ALHsomenumber) had tiny rock shapes that are not at all well supported as being due to life.
A flood, with or without fountains of the deep, would't even remotely have enough power to slide the Americas over to where they are now. And this ignores the geology of the entire Atlantic Basin and its margins, which record tens of millions of years of slow, more-or-less steady development.

DC - Let's add the 500 F that the "fountains" would have been at ten miles down to your 492 for latent heat, and then we have.....hmm...Poached Ark.

Sojourner553

DavidH: A large number of religious Christians hold that many of the accounts in Genesis were mythical.

Why? Inherent within the story of the Flood are a list of problems related to a LITERAL interpretation of the Flood story:


*How could an ark have been constructed to hold VERY known species of animals on the earth--while maintaining temperature, food, and waste control or them?

*How did the animals from around the world migrate to and from the Ark?
Kangaroos and koala bears exist only in Australia, and penguins and polar bears
live in cold climates. There is no evidence of these animals ever being present
in the Middle East. Were they supernaturally transported from their native
habitats to the Ark, and then back again following the Flood, with no traces
left that they were ever present in the Middle East? And what would the koala
bear have eaten on the ark? Koala bears only eat eucalyptus tree leaves, which
are indigenous to Australia and Indonesia alone. (There are many other examples:
such as panda bears only eating from the bamboo tree indigenous around China).

*Where did all the water go after the Flood receded if it indeed covered the
entire surface of the Earth? (Some creationists have speculated there must
be deep seas of water hidden within deep fissures of the earth that no one has
located yet.

*If the Flood was truly meant to destroy "all flesh that moved upon the
earth", why weren't fishes and sea mammals--such as dolphins and whales-
destroyed as well? (Note, some translations of the Genesis story get around this
by implying that God "only" wanted to destroy "all flesh that moved upon the
LAND".)

* Scientists estimate there are about 100 million species in the world. A
large proportion of these are bugs (twenty percent of the 100 million species
are beetles!) If God specially created each species, then he must have spent
more time making insects than humans. Did He then have a special affinity for
beetles? Were all these species on the ark? Do all varieties of bugs serve a purpose? As Mark Twain quipped on
this once, "The good Lord didn't create anything without a purpose, but the fly
comes close."

* Why as one moves from younger to OLDER layers of the fossil record, species
appear to have evolved from simpler forms and common ancestors. As Stephen Jay
Gould put this, "If God made each of the half dozen species discovered in
ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporary sequence of
progressively more modern features-increasing cranial capacity, reduced face
and teeth, larger body size? Did he create this to mimic evolution and test our
faith thereby?"

So much data supporting evolutionary change has been collected, that as
Gould and others have noted, IF evolution were indeed false, then either
God, or alternatively the Devil himself must have falsely planted millions
of faked fossils in order to "trick" those who use observation and science
to guide them.

Creationists largely get around problems such as explaining the LITERAL
nature of the Flood and Ark by arguing that if God is truly all-powerful, then
He would have the power to create ANY miracle-- exactly as described in the
Bible!

Again many religious groups/individuals today are not creationists. They look at the Bible as telling moral truths, not literal scientific proofs.

Sojourner

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>