Posted on 11/18/2009 9:13:37 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Volcanic activity in 2005 accompanied the formation of a deep, wide rift in Ethiopia on part of the 4,000-mile-long north-to-south trending Great Rift Valley fault. Studies show that the injection of mantle material that “unzipped” the earth along the fault operated the same way as similar material does in less-accessible undersea rifts. Scientists knew that rifts were formed in this manner, but the suddenness of this one’s formation astonished them...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
I demonstrate that Creationists mean “evolution” in the exact same way as the Evos, and your response is to call Creationists liars again. The irony is exquisite...LOL!
How you came up with that amazes me.
“Scientists seem to be easily astonished and astonished by an awful lot.
I guess that means that they don’t know as much as they think they do. “
That whole falsification thing gets in the way of so much scientific advancement, doesn’t it? I mean, wouldn’t it be easier just to emphatically proclaim the inarguable truth of a belief in spite of clear observable evidence against it? You know, the way creation rationalizers do.
+1
“Dr. Walt Brown Ph.D. extrapolates that the tectonic plates would have moved as fast as 45mph initially after the flood waters began to recede significantly. “
Ah, yes! Who can ignore the father of the hydroplaning continents theory? Is he known as Dr. Walt Brown or as Walt Brown Ph.D? Dr. Walt Brown Ph.D. is redundant. And a crackpot!
No, uniformitarianism does state that what we see now can be extrapolated over periods of time, but that doesn't declare a 'slow, uniform pace' be the only method of change. That is only one tiny fraction of the whole. Some events we see now are rapid as well. The core concept of uniformitarianism is actually related to physical laws. Some people are still hung up on some 18th century sayings from people like Hutton and Playfair. The concept of 'only slow and uniform' goes back to the Persian geologist, Avicenna. However, just as our knowledge of Physics has evolved over time, the uniformity concept has evolved.
The four principles of unformatarianism are:
None of these principles limit changes to 'slow, uniform pace'.
Creationists mean “evolution”, obviously not as just common usage of “change”, but as a bogeyman that somehow involves Darwin's theory of biological evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.
If the Creationist idiot in question was using the word in its proper usage, then how could the RATE of change contradict the idea that the Earth was changing or ‘evolving’?
Moreover the creationist idiot in question directly stated that he sees this finding as a contradiction of Darwin's theory; leading several posters to joke about Darwin's book “On the origin of the movements of continents”.
And how about the Pope? Is he a “so called Christian” or a “hardcore evo”?
“there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
Pope Benedict XVI
I've often wondered if someone has calculated what the thermal affects of this would be? That mass, moving at that speed, on the friction of another mass. We can see the thermal results of fairly minor plate tectonics now. Imagine the force and energy involved if all the plates moved at once, at the pace Brown suggests? All of this while under water? I have a feeling Venus would look like a cool climate in comparison after an event like that.
Go back to your post 18 where you thanked an evo for explaining how creationists *see* things.
Then read my reply in post 32.
That’s how I came up with that.
You never really answered the questions, anyway.
I’m sure that the redundant Dr. Walt Brown Ph.D. has thought it all through. Here’s his link: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/.
“Let’s go surfin’ now
Everybody’s learning how
Come on a safari with me!....”
..and they accuse “evos” (whatever the heck that is, I think it is a Mitsubishi sports car) of making up stuff that isn’t in the Bible.
That’s one helluva theory. Completely baseless and devoid of anything other than making it up to fit a story in the Bible.....but when that’s all one has to go on, you can make up whatever you want.
Thanks for the new site to laugh at....the Grand Canyon piece is humorous.
“Indeed, there is so much catastrophism being uncovered these days, one wonders what uniformitarianism even means any more.”
—Agreed, it does get confusing. But who’s been redefining the terms?
It was the uniformitarians that actually emphasized the incredible transforming power of earthquakes, volcanoes, and local floods (Lyell’s writings on volcanoes remind me of Steven Austin’s writings on Mt St. Helens). It was the catastrophists the downplayed the power of such events. To the catastrophists, the “catastrophes” (or “revolutions” as they often called them) were mysterious events which were global, or at least continent-wide, that were powerful enough to, at minimum, utterly wipe a continent, if not multiple continents, from the face of Earth – or make new continents appear. For the early catastrophists, such as Cuvier, there were only 8 or 9 such events in the history of Earth (and no, they were not young-earthers. For most catastrophists, none of the ‘catastrophes’ had occurred within the history of humanity, except – for some catastrophists – possibly the event recorded as Noah’s Flood).
Now, apparently, a “catastrophe” is a 20 foot wide crack.
Obviously this change is quicker than most scientists believed it would be, and seems to counter currently accepted theories, that’s not in question. What I find laughable is the way anything that is observed outside of current theory is taken by sites like ICR and others as proof of absolute absurd concepts.
Yep, We’ve seen the rift moving at 2.25 inches in a month, that means some guy who worked backwards from 6000 years to get his numbers must be right and plates can move 100s of miles per month... I mean it moved at 2.25 inches in amonth, then 100+ miles must be valid too.
The orders of magnitude to make such statements are just absurd. Look at any subduction plane currently, for example, take a look at the Indonesian Tsunami, this was a subduction quake look at the devestation this caused and we know these plates aren’t moving 100s of miles per year Indonesia, or Java or Austrialia while moving are not moving anywhere near those rates, yet when the subduction zone releases from the stresses of just a few inches or feet annually over long periods of time the resulting quakes bring about devestation.. yet we are to believe plates are subducting at rates of 100s of miles per month? Its just not supported by any evidence.. is it possible that plates have shifted relatively large distances in relatively short time frames... certainly, but not thousands of miles in “months”.. the geological upheaval from such movements would be so massive the scars (even on a living active planet) would be unmistakable.
Actually he has thought about that too. Ever hear of super critical water [pressure > 3200 psi and temp > 705 F]. It has an amazing property of not producing heat under those conditions. Makes the ice age much more likely.
The “hydroplate theory” has far more flaws than current techtonic theory. “Hydroplate Theory” is an attempt to justify a biblical passage, not to reach conclusions form known or observed facts.
The very physics of “hydroplate theory” don’t pass the smell test.
Here’s a pretty good lesson in physics that anyone clinging to hydroplate theory should read and understand, and the most compelling thing you should know before you read this, is it was actually written by a creationist, albeit and old earth creationist not one of these young earth folks:
By the hydproplate theory you have:
The earth constructed as follows: a solid center, a water layer, then above that, a layer of granite or basalt which ‘floats’ on the water. This is as shown below:
^ a mountain ps = 2.1 g/cc height = h
Earth’s crust (granite 2.65 g/cc, or basalt 3.3 g/cc) Thickness = T
Water (density 1.0 g/cc) Thickness = tw
Earth center (solid density > 3.3)
There are several things to notice about this situation. First, the crust must be absolutely impermeable to the water. There must be no earthquakes before the flood since the first crack in this sphere would allow the water to escape. This means that there must be no meteorites before the flood. And heaven help mankind if he ever were to have drilled into the crust for curiosity’s sake.
There must absolutely not have been any elevation differences. The effects of a load on the top of the crust can be seen from using an elastic sheet solution to the load. The 4th order differential equation is:
4
d z
D—— + (pm-pw)zg = P(x)
4
dx
where:
P(x) is the load as a function of horizontal distance
z is the distance the load will sink
g is the acceleration of gravity
pm is the density of the crust
pw is the density of water
D = ET3 /(12(1-sig)^2
where:
E is Young’s modulus, 1011 dynes/cm^2
sig is Poison’s ratio, .25
T is the thickness of the crustal layer into which the load sinks
For a two dimensional load with a ½ width, A, the bending of the crust is:
z max = h(ps-pw)(1-e-^LA cos(LA)) / (pm-ps)
where:
L = 4th root ((pm-pw) g) / (4D))
With a crust thickness of 5 km (5 x 10^5 cm) sig = .25, E = 10^11, we have:
D = 1.1 x 1028
L = 4.37 x 10-7
Now, for a mountain 10 km (1.10^6 cm) in radius and 5 km (5 x 10^5 cm) in height (h), the minimum thickness of the crust must be:
= 4.1km
A crust thinner than this value will be completely broken by the weight of the mountain.
The bending of the crust by 4.1 km will occur by fracture. This would immediately release the water. Thus, there are no mountains. Even a hill one kilometre high would require that the crust bend by 830 meters.
Therefore, the crust must be perfectly smooth. Thus, you must violate the Biblical record where it says that all the high mountains were covered. In your conception of the flood, there could be no mountains or hills.
Secondly, in your model, you must have pillars to retain the physical connection with the core. If you do not do this, you will have the certainty that the crust will eventually crash into the core. Friction between the crust and the water and the water and the core will cause the outer crust to begin to move in a fashion different to that of the earth’s interior. This would cause turbulence and would lead to a crash. The crust is free to move in relation to the core in response to tidal forces. The theoretical height h of the equilibrium tide in a rigid earth is:
h = .5 (M/E)(a/R)^3 a(3cos^2 (theta)-1)
where:
E is the mass of the earth
M is the mass of the moon, 1 and .123 respectively
a is the radius of the earth 6378 km
R is the distance from the earth’s center to the moon’s center, 384,405 km
theta is the angle between the moon and the zenith
Plugging these values into the equation we have h = .00358 km, or h = 3.58 meters. This means that your crust will heave every day by this value. Due to the fact that neither granite nor basalt are single crystalline materials, small fractures will develop in between the individual crystals.
Suppose you placed the water under 5 km of crust, the pressure of the water would be:
5 x 10^5 * 980 * 2.65 = 1.29 x 10^9 dynes = 1281 atmospheres of pressure
The temperature gradient is 1º C for every 30 m so there is a 166º C increase in temperature as we go deeper.
166 + 25º C (the surface temperature) = 191º C
A layer of cave water 2 km thick all around the earth would contain 1 x 10^24 cubic centimeters of water. At 191ºC, the high temperature water would contain 1.7 x 10^26 calories. (1 calorie per degree rise (166 degree rise)). The minute the pressure is released the water will turn to steam and you will cook the earth. Dividing the calories by the surface area of the earth shows that:
heat /cm^2 = 1.7 x 10^26 Calories/5 x 10^14 square cms = 3.3 x 10^7 Cal/cm^2
I don’t think Noah could survive this. This is a poor mechanism for a flood.
I have seen the IPOD* seismic line, every inch of it, and there is absolutely no evidence of any residual buried water or deeply buried cave to hold the water. There are no indications of collapse structures of the size your model would require anywhere on any seismic data I have ever examined in the past 22 years.
Water Velocity
Brown has a 10 km thick granite crust with a 1 km thick layer of water. The pressure is enough to raise a tube of water to 17 km (see Brown, pg. 37, Fountains of the Deep). Water squirting up out of the hole will rise to that level. What is the velocity of the water coming out of the crack? Ignoring friction, this can be found by equating the potential energy of the drops at 17 km to the kinetic energy at the surface needed to propel the water that high. Thus:
gh = .5v^2
where:
h is the height of the water, 17 km
v is the velocity
g is the acceleration due to gravity, 9.8
Solving for v, we have v = 577 meters /sec. According to the steam table cited below, there is a 814 times increase of volume in the phase change. The vapor occupies 814 times more volume.
Now, According to Steam Tables (Combustion Engineering Inc., 1940), the pressure needed to keep water a liquid at 250º F, which is the temperature of Brown’s water, is 2.02 atmospheres.
Consider a 1 square meter tube with 577 cubic m/s emanating from it. Due to the fact that 2.02 atmosphere is the weight of 20 meters of water, water coming up the crack will not change to steam until the final 20 meters. With the velocity of 577 meters per second coming out of the crack, this means that 577 cubic meters each second will occupy 814 times the volume that it used to. As a water surface passes the point at which it turns into vapor, it will, within one second, be pushed 577 x 814 = 469,779 m. This is a velocity of 469 kilometers per second. There would be no flood since none of the vapor would remain on the earth. The earth’s escape velocity is about 11 kilometers per second. Any object that exceeds 11 km per second leaves the earth and never returns. How could this theory cause a flood?
In reality these numbers would be somewhat smaller due to frictional effects, but even if they are off by 99%, the steam escaping is still above escape velocity for the earth. The steam would be sent to Alpha Centauri!!”
So basically uniformitarianism must comply with only the effects we can observe today. Even though there will not be another global flood nor [most probably] a mini ice age nor what would most likely follow the above - much higher frequencies of all manner of natural disasters.
Keep those goal posts moving as much as you need to keep yourselves comfortably ensconced in your modern day ‘scientific’ theories. Don’t forget to ignore all evidence that is contrary.
Not just the Grand Canyon piece. How about this one? 
The figure is accompanied by the following caption: "Figure 41: Fountains of the Great Deep. Notice the bulge of western Africa beginning to form."
IT'S A PAINING! AN ARTIST'S CONCEPTION! With a straight face, this fraud is pointing readers to the formation of the African continent on this comic book panel as though it were actual photographic evidence!
What else can any intelligent, self-respecting Christian do but laugh at this sophistry?
Wow, that’s interesting. And out of curiousity, what vessel would hold the water at said 3200 psi. It couldn’t be the world itself because if the atmosphere was somehow holding the water at said pressures, you would have pretty much any non-rock material dissolve under the oxidize pressures of super critical water (not to mention the temperature).
You would have pretty much the same results as I said in my example, extremely hot temperatures, extremely high pressure and, if the super critical water pressure theory is correct for the flood waters, you would have hyper-oxidation reactions happening that would dissolve everything.
Like I said, Venus would look like a mild climate in contrast.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.