rapid continental plate collision: Flood Geology

[McCulloch]

You should do some research into the various Flood models. I favor Baumgardner's "catastrophic plate tectonics"; you can google it.

Mt. Everest was caused by the cataclysmic upheavals and rapid continental plate collision, rifting, and subduction that produced the Flood -- as well as the release of the "Fountains of the Deep", and the 40 days and nights of rain (the rain didn't cause the Flood; it was produced by it).

As you're obviously uninformed as to what really happened in Earth's history, I envy your voyage of discovery!

Is there any valid geological evidence to support these claims?

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

Of course there isn't any evidence. It's a crackpot theory and a distraction meant to fill Believers with hope, and fill the author's pockets with money.

[Clownboat]

You should do some research into the various Flood models. I favor Baumgardner's "catastrophic plate tectonics"; you can google it.

Mt. Everest was caused by the cataclysmic upheavals and rapid continental plate collision, rifting, and subduction that produced the Flood -- as well as the release of the "Fountains of the Deep", and the 40 days and nights of rain (the rain didn't cause the Flood; it was produced by it).

As you're obviously uninformed as to what really happened in Earth's history, I envy your voyage of discovery!

Is there any valid geological evidence to support these claims?

Zero that I have found.
I await new info to be revealed.

[Volbrigade]

You should do some research into the various Flood models. I favor Baumgardner's "catastrophic plate tectonics"; you can google it.

Mt. Everest was caused by the cataclysmic upheavals and rapid continental plate collision, rifting, and subduction that produced the Flood -- as well as the release of the "Fountains of the Deep", and the 40 days and nights of rain (the rain didn't cause the Flood; it was produced by it).

As you're obviously uninformed as to what really happened in Earth's history, I envy your voyage of discovery!

Is there any valid geological evidence to support these claims?

Zero that I have found.
I await new info to be revealed.

You guys don't know how to google?

[bernee51]

[Replying to post 4 by Volbrigade]

I think the key word is 'evidence'. Read Baumgardner's stuff...to me he is trying to make the hole fit the puddle.

Mainstream science generally accepts the birth of the Himalayas (and thus Everest) to have been 70 million years ago. From Wiki..., the Indo-Australian plate continues to be driven horizontally below the Tibetan plateau, which forces the plateau to continue to move upwards. The Indo-Australian plate is still moving at 67 mm per year, and over the next 10 million years it will travel about 1,500 km into Asia.

[Zzyzx]

.

You guys don't know how to google?

Moderator Comment

Please do not make one-line comments that contribute nothing to the discussion and do not make demeaning comments to other members.

Please review the Rules.

[Volbrigade]

.

You guys don't know how to google?

Moderator Comment

Please do not make one-line comments that contribute nothing to the discussion and do not make demeaning comments to other members.

Please review the Rules.

Is having a sense of humor against the rules?

[Zzyzx]

Is having a sense of humor against the rules?

Moderator Warning

Please review the Rules.

Please do not comment on moderator actions in threads. If you have something to say about an action send a PM.

Please do not continue to make pointless one-line posts (even in attempted humor)


______________

Moderator warnings serve as a strike towards users that can lead to a probation vote. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Clownboat]

You should do some research into the various Flood models. I favor Baumgardner's "catastrophic plate tectonics"; you can google it.

Mt. Everest was caused by the cataclysmic upheavals and rapid continental plate collision, rifting, and subduction that produced the Flood -- as well as the release of the "Fountains of the Deep", and the 40 days and nights of rain (the rain didn't cause the Flood; it was produced by it).

As you're obviously uninformed as to what really happened in Earth's history, I envy your voyage of discovery!

Is there any valid geological evidence to support these claims?

Zero that I have found.
I await new info to be revealed.

You guys don't know how to google?

I do, and I assume you do as well.

Please do your best Google'ing and provide us with the best evidence you have for examination.

[1213]

You should do some research into the various Flood models. I favor Baumgardner's "catastrophic plate tectonics"; you can google it.

Mt. Everest was caused by the cataclysmic upheavals and rapid continental plate collision, rifting, and subduction that produced the Flood -- as well as the release of the "Fountains of the Deep", and the 40 days and nights of rain (the rain didn't cause the Flood; it was produced by it).

As you're obviously uninformed as to what really happened in Earth's history, I envy your voyage of discovery!

Is there any valid geological evidence to support these claims?

I think the first thing that people should do, if they really want to consider that option, is to think, what would be the evidence for those claims and what it would really mean.

On the basis of what the Bible tells, earth means dry land and it was stretched over water. That means under the earth, there was much water. And when the great flood came, much of that water burst out. And obviously, if the water under the earth comes out, earth sinks. And if earth sinks the broken edges are compressed to each other because the surface area is not anymore the same. And that is the theory and it leads to assumptions/claims, if the great flood happened as the Bible tells:

1. One continent was collapsed
2. One continent formed new continents
3. The edges of the continents are compressed, because when they were on surface of the water, they had greater surface area than after the collapse.
4. Much of the old continent is sunken.

Now that we have the claims for the theory, we can start to seek do we have any evidence for the claims and for the theory?

One continent is according to the modern scientific understanding true and is nowadays split to many continents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea

Also the edges of the continents are said to be compressed in many parts, which also confirms that this theory is plausibly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake

So what do you think, can the theory be correct?

You can read more about this from:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/geology.html