Great Explanation of Global Flood Model
- Thread starter IceAgeCivilizations
- Start date
- Status
Go to the biology section.
Ok, back to the subject at hand, can anybody point out flaws in the analysis in the opening post link? And be specific to its content.
Last edited:
According to your document, here is how the waters from the flood receeded:
"After the rapid horizontal motion stopped, cooling increased the density of the new ocean floor. producing gradually deepening oceans [7] -- eventually producing our current ocean basins."
Here is how the Bible states that the water receeded:
Gen 8:1
8:1 Then God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the animals that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided.
NKJV
Hmmmmmmmm, why oh why doesn't the model presented in your link match with the Bible's account? After all, since the story of Noah's ark "reads like ships log" according to you, why did it miss such as vital fact?
Here is why your genius scientists say the "runaway tectonics" could happen:
"Second, we believe that the pre-Flood ocean crust was mafic -- most probably basaltic. Once again three reasons exist for this inference: 1) Pre-Flood basaltic ocean crust is suggested by ophiolites (containing pillow basalts and presumed ocean sediments) which are thought to represent pieces of ocean floor and obducted onto the continents early in the Flood; 2) If, as claimed above, the pre-Flood craton was sialic, then buoyancy forces would make a mafic pre-Flood ocean crust into a natural basin for ocean water. This would prevent ocean water from overrunning the continents; and 3) If, as claimed above, the continents were sialic, mafic material would be necessary to drive the subduction required in our flood model.
From the word "IF" used in "reasons" #2 and #3, we know that they ae not "reasons," they are "assumptions".
"reason" #1 is pure made up speculative bullshit, as proved by the following:
"Interestingly, the age of ophiolite formation is often surprisingly close to the age of their emplacement into the continental crust. Ophiolites are found in all the major mountain belts of the world whether collisional (e.g. Himalayas) or not (e.g. Andes). The subduction-related chemistry of ophiolites and their association with mountain belts suggests that their formation and emplacement are related to oceanic closure and continental collision (final stages of the Wilson Cycle) rather than oceanic opening and seafloor spreading as was first thought."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiolite
Now, how did the "runaway subduction" magically occur out of nowhere and for no apparent reason?
Let's see what your "scientists" have to say:
"Initiation
There has been considerable discussion -- both reasonable and fanciful -- about what event might have initiated the Flood. Considerations range from a) the direct hand of God [56-62,6-7]; b) the impact or near-miss of an astronomical objector objects such as asteroids [102], meteorites [74], a comet [116,75], a comet or Venus[11], Venus and Mars [109], Mars [76], Mars, Ceres and Jupiter [118], another moon of earth [9], and a star [10]; c) some purely terrestrial event or events, such as fracturing of the earth's crust due to drying [14] or radioactive heat buildup [36], rapid tilting of the earth due to gyro turbulence [71] or ice sheet buildup [54], and natural collapse of rings of ice [114,103]; or d) various combinations of these ideas. We feel that the Flood was initiated as slabs of oceanic crust broke loose and subducted along thousands of kilometers of pre-Flood continental margins. We are, however, not ready at this time to speculate on what event or events might have initiated that subduction. We feel that considerable research is still needed to evaluate potential mechanisms in the light of how well they can produce global subduction."
Need anything else be said? LOL.
Thanks, and have a nice day.
"After the rapid horizontal motion stopped, cooling increased the density of the new ocean floor. producing gradually deepening oceans [7] -- eventually producing our current ocean basins."
Here is how the Bible states that the water receeded:
Gen 8:1
8:1 Then God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the animals that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided.
NKJV
Hmmmmmmmm, why oh why doesn't the model presented in your link match with the Bible's account? After all, since the story of Noah's ark "reads like ships log" according to you, why did it miss such as vital fact?
Here is why your genius scientists say the "runaway tectonics" could happen:
"Second, we believe that the pre-Flood ocean crust was mafic -- most probably basaltic. Once again three reasons exist for this inference: 1) Pre-Flood basaltic ocean crust is suggested by ophiolites (containing pillow basalts and presumed ocean sediments) which are thought to represent pieces of ocean floor and obducted onto the continents early in the Flood; 2) If, as claimed above, the pre-Flood craton was sialic, then buoyancy forces would make a mafic pre-Flood ocean crust into a natural basin for ocean water. This would prevent ocean water from overrunning the continents; and 3) If, as claimed above, the continents were sialic, mafic material would be necessary to drive the subduction required in our flood model.
From the word "IF" used in "reasons" #2 and #3, we know that they ae not "reasons," they are "assumptions".
"reason" #1 is pure made up speculative bullshit, as proved by the following:
"Interestingly, the age of ophiolite formation is often surprisingly close to the age of their emplacement into the continental crust. Ophiolites are found in all the major mountain belts of the world whether collisional (e.g. Himalayas) or not (e.g. Andes). The subduction-related chemistry of ophiolites and their association with mountain belts suggests that their formation and emplacement are related to oceanic closure and continental collision (final stages of the Wilson Cycle) rather than oceanic opening and seafloor spreading as was first thought."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiolite
Now, how did the "runaway subduction" magically occur out of nowhere and for no apparent reason?
Let's see what your "scientists" have to say:
"Initiation
There has been considerable discussion -- both reasonable and fanciful -- about what event might have initiated the Flood. Considerations range from a) the direct hand of God [56-62,6-7]; b) the impact or near-miss of an astronomical objector objects such as asteroids [102], meteorites [74], a comet [116,75], a comet or Venus[11], Venus and Mars [109], Mars [76], Mars, Ceres and Jupiter [118], another moon of earth [9], and a star [10]; c) some purely terrestrial event or events, such as fracturing of the earth's crust due to drying [14] or radioactive heat buildup [36], rapid tilting of the earth due to gyro turbulence [71] or ice sheet buildup [54], and natural collapse of rings of ice [114,103]; or d) various combinations of these ideas. We feel that the Flood was initiated as slabs of oceanic crust broke loose and subducted along thousands of kilometers of pre-Flood continental margins. We are, however, not ready at this time to speculate on what event or events might have initiated that subduction. We feel that considerable research is still needed to evaluate potential mechanisms in the light of how well they can produce global subduction."
Need anything else be said? LOL.
Thanks, and have a nice day.
According to your document, here is how the waters from the flood receeded:
"After the rapid horizontal motion stopped, cooling increased the density of the new ocean floor. producing gradually deepening oceans [7] -- eventually producing our current ocean basins."
Here is how the Bible states that the water receeded:
Gen 8:1
8:1 Then God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the animals that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided.
NKJV
IAC, please point out the portion of the article you linked us to which mentions a great wind passing over the earth and evaporating the water. Thanks.
"After the rapid horizontal motion stopped, cooling increased the density of the new ocean floor. producing gradually deepening oceans [7] -- eventually producing our current ocean basins."
Here is how the Bible states that the water receeded:
Gen 8:1
8:1 Then God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the animals that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided.
NKJV
IAC, please point out the portion of the article you linked us to which mentions a great wind passing over the earth and evaporating the water. Thanks.
Wind usually causes evaporation, genius. Please, humor me. Why else would God say that he sent a wind to pass over the earth? Just to fill up space in the storyline?
Where does it supposedly say that the ocean basins sunk and the mountains rose. It reads like a ship's log, right?
Where does it supposedly say that the ocean basins sunk and the mountains rose. It reads like a ship's log, right?
Psalm 104: 6-9. The thunder seems to have accompanied all that wind.
IAC, the whole point is that the Genesis account, which you claim reads like a ship's log, makes no mention of ocean basins sinking or mountains rising. I don't give two flying fucks what the author of Psalms 104 has to say, because we are talking about solely the genesis account.
But, just for kicks, let us analyze the verses which you so elogantly pointed out.
Interesting that you didn't actually post the verses. I think I know why.
Psalm 104: 6-9
6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters stood above the mountains.
7 At Your rebuke they fled;
At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.
8 They (the waters) went up over the mountains;
They (the waters) went down into the valleys,
To the place which You founded for them.
9 You have set a boundary that they may not pass over,
That they may not return to cover the earth.
NKJV
Again IAC, point out to me where in these verses the author speaks of the ocean basins sinking, or the mountains rising?
The author claims that during the flood the waters stood above "the mountains" meaning that "the mountains" already existed pre-flood and during the flood, genius. They didn't rise at the close of the deluge because they were already there!
According to this author, the waters receeded by going up over "the mountains" which already existed pre-flood and during the flood, and the valleys which already existed pre- and during the flood.
Notice how "the waters" are the only substance in motion, or doing any moving in those verses. The mountains and the valleys are not moving, which directly contradicts your model.
Thanks for this excerpt though, because now we have TWO biblical accounts which contradicts your model.
But, just for kicks, let us analyze the verses which you so elogantly pointed out.
Interesting that you didn't actually post the verses. I think I know why.
Psalm 104: 6-9
6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters stood above the mountains.
7 At Your rebuke they fled;
At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.
8 They (the waters) went up over the mountains;
They (the waters) went down into the valleys,
To the place which You founded for them.
9 You have set a boundary that they may not pass over,
That they may not return to cover the earth.
NKJV
Again IAC, point out to me where in these verses the author speaks of the ocean basins sinking, or the mountains rising?
The author claims that during the flood the waters stood above "the mountains" meaning that "the mountains" already existed pre-flood and during the flood, genius. They didn't rise at the close of the deluge because they were already there!
According to this author, the waters receeded by going up over "the mountains" which already existed pre-flood and during the flood, and the valleys which already existed pre- and during the flood.
Notice how "the waters" are the only substance in motion, or doing any moving in those verses. The mountains and the valleys are not moving, which directly contradicts your model.
Thanks for this excerpt though, because now we have TWO biblical accounts which contradicts your model.
The pre-Deluge "mountains" were not nearly as high as our current ones.
LOL. Ohhhh, now I see.
At any rate, I couldn't give two fucks about how high the mountains were pre-deluge. Why doesn't David (or whoever) talk about the mountains rising and the ocean basins sinking? Clearly, from the passage you provided me, there is no talk of the mountains or ocean basins in motion, ONLY THE WATER IS MOVING THROUGH GOD'S COMMAND.
So in Noah's account, which according to you "reads like a ship's log" (meaning it has incredibly intricate detail), the waters subsided by God passing a wind over the earth.
Then, according to David (or whoever wrote the psalm), God told the waters to move the fuck out, and they did.
Nowhere in the entire bible is there talk of ocean basins sinking or mountains rapidly rising (which I'm sure was very noticable and would have been recorded in Noah's detailed ship's log).
Further, in talking about the receeded flood waters, David makes the bold statement:
"You have set a boundary that they may not pass over,
That they may not return to cover the earth."
While, in the real world, we see that this bold "prophesy" of David's has already been disproven:
Sorry, IAC. The story just wasn't meant to be taken literally (kind of like Santa Clause).
At any rate, I couldn't give two fucks about how high the mountains were pre-deluge. Why doesn't David (or whoever) talk about the mountains rising and the ocean basins sinking? Clearly, from the passage you provided me, there is no talk of the mountains or ocean basins in motion, ONLY THE WATER IS MOVING THROUGH GOD'S COMMAND.
So in Noah's account, which according to you "reads like a ship's log" (meaning it has incredibly intricate detail), the waters subsided by God passing a wind over the earth.
Then, according to David (or whoever wrote the psalm), God told the waters to move the fuck out, and they did.
Nowhere in the entire bible is there talk of ocean basins sinking or mountains rapidly rising (which I'm sure was very noticable and would have been recorded in Noah's detailed ship's log).
Further, in talking about the receeded flood waters, David makes the bold statement:
"You have set a boundary that they may not pass over,
That they may not return to cover the earth."
While, in the real world, we see that this bold "prophesy" of David's has already been disproven:
Sorry, IAC. The story just wasn't meant to be taken literally (kind of like Santa Clause).
Impressive job contradicting the Bible with your Global Flood Model. I'm sure God would be proud.
(Prediction)IAC: Why don't you ask him? or God doesn't care about your opinion.
As if Noah's Flood, clearly described in the Bible, was not Global, ha!
My proof is in the story of Noah, and the Psalms account of the flood.
In the story of Noah, which reads like a ship's log, there is talk of mountains pre-flood, and post-flood. But there is not even one mention of the mountains even being slightly different or higher than they were before the flood. They are simply just referred to as "mountains" again.
The psalms account presents the same proof.
Also keep in mind that not one mention of ocean basins sinking is made in either account. There's some mo' proof for ya.
Also, I'm sure a planet exploding and asteroids coming towards earth would also be included in the detailed ship's log of Noah (which of course, it wasn't).
So I ask you again: Why is it that you contradict the Biblical account of the flood in order to make up your own rationalization?
In the story of Noah, which reads like a ship's log, there is talk of mountains pre-flood, and post-flood. But there is not even one mention of the mountains even being slightly different or higher than they were before the flood. They are simply just referred to as "mountains" again.
The psalms account presents the same proof.
Also keep in mind that not one mention of ocean basins sinking is made in either account. There's some mo' proof for ya.
Also, I'm sure a planet exploding and asteroids coming towards earth would also be included in the detailed ship's log of Noah (which of course, it wasn't).
So I ask you again: Why is it that you contradict the Biblical account of the flood in order to make up your own rationalization?
- Status