Christians, What Do You Make Of The Decline Of Your Religion?

[Miles]

.


....................

.................... source

Or doesn't it matter?

.

[brunumb]

....Also, compression requires space between particles. Please consider the entire planet covered in a huge volume of water above normal sea level. That volume needs to disappear. The amount of compression required for your scenario is impossible.

I agree that there must have been space between particles, otherwise it can't be compressed. But, I don't agree that the amount of compression is impossible, because no good reason to think so.

There is every good reason to think so! Solids and liquids are incredibly difficult to compress because there is so little space between the particles. Think about how and why a syringe is able to inject fluids. Rock just can't be compressed. If there was a tiny degree of compression across the planet it would be of little or no consequence considering the volume of water involved. Epic fail, sorry.

[1213]

There is every good reason to think so! Solids and liquids are incredibly difficult to compress because there is so little space between the particles. Think about how and why a syringe is able to inject fluids. Rock just can't be compressed. If there was a tiny degree of compression across the planet it would be of little or no consequence considering the volume of water involved. Epic fail, sorry.

But, the material that sunk was not solid nor liquid. For example all the plants, animals and humans are not solid. And even the non organic material can have lot of air/gas mixed in, soil is not solid, there is always air mixed in.

[brunumb]

There is every good reason to think so! Solids and liquids are incredibly difficult to compress because there is so little space between the particles. Think about how and why a syringe is able to inject fluids. Rock just can't be compressed. If there was a tiny degree of compression across the planet it would be of little or no consequence considering the volume of water involved. Epic fail, sorry.

But, the material that sunk was not solid nor liquid. For example all the plants, animals and humans are not solid. And even the non organic material can have lot of air/gas mixed in, soil is not solid, there is always air mixed in.

You are clutching at straws. All those things are predominantly solid and liquid with little space between the particles. All the animals and plants together would not compress to the degree or scale that would be needed.

An interesting little Fermi problem I presented to students when I taught. If you took all the blood in all the human beings in the world today and put it in a cubic container, what would be the approximate side length of the cube in metres? The answer might help you appreciate the enormous scale of the flood and how little impact your suggestions would have on solving the water problem.

[1213]

You are clutching at straws. All those things are predominantly solid and liquid with little space between the particles. All the animals and plants together would not compress to the degree or scale that would be needed.

Difficult to know how much there was organic material. On basis of the sizes of coal, gas and oil fields, there could have been lot of animals and plants. However, I don't think there were the only thing compressed. There could have been lot of material that is not very dense on dry land. And in this case I think it is good to understand, lot of stuff got mixed in sediments where they could have caused air pockets and large cave systems, which some of have later collapsed causing the effect that water level drops.

[brunumb]

You are clutching at straws. All those things are predominantly solid and liquid with little space between the particles. All the animals and plants together would not compress to the degree or scale that would be needed.

Difficult to know how much there was organic material. On basis of the sizes of coal, gas and oil fields, there could have been lot of animals and plants. However, I don't think there were the only thing compressed. There could have been lot of material that is not very dense on dry land. And in this case I think it is good to understand, lot of stuff got mixed in sediments where they could have caused air pockets and large cave systems, which some of have later collapsed causing the effect that water level drops.

No, no, no. You do not appreciate the immense volume of water involved. Even if there were mountains of candy floss, the decrease in volume due to compression would achieve very little. Solids an liquids, even if organic, will noy compress to any appreciable degree. Your scenario is an epic fail.

If you took all the blood in all the human beings in the world today and put it in a cubic container, what would be the approximate side length of the cube in metres?
Answer: 300 metres!

[TRANSPONDER]

"Wrong. But I don't know where" (Charlie Brown)

Without your explanation, I just felt there was something wrong (at least) with the idea of a hydroplate breaking up, the continent - pieces sinking to the floor of the undersea ocean and the sunken pieces compressing the undersea floor (not the sunken pieces, which are not being compressed by anything) enough to expose dry land to a height of the tallest mountains in order to simulate the flood going down. There's also the problem that the strata would have to be caused by soil etc. on top of the pieces of hydroplate settling out in the sediment gradation model, with the critters graded according to evolutionary development with the hydroplate as well the the sea floor beneath being unstratified and of course not containing oil; or coal, which is fossil organics.

Our pal's model, as well as departing from either the model of the mountains being here as supports for the hydroplate or the one with the mountains somehow growing to their present height, has this model of the sunken continents being exposed by receding water, however that is supposed to happen, the sunken continents are somehow swept to their present positions, with the mountain ranges being thrust up in the process, so we then have to explain how particular kinds of animals get to the various continents. That would conflict with the idea that the supercontinent split up with the appropriate animals on, and they separated to their present positions.

Even if this could be made to work and never mind conflicting mechanisms, I have to say that deep time geology, evolution, stratification, rolled over strata, salt mines (ancient oceans) animal distribution, vulcanism and plate tectonics, not to mention DNA and animal morphology (cetans and birds clearly showing derivation from walking critters), all fit the evidence better than the Genesis story.

Unless all that science based evidence is just dismissed. Believers operate on Faith and think Genesis is true eve if their models don't work, so it's always those who look for the best explanation must decide and (in the meme we sometimes hear) "No one side can convince the other".