TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 2:42 amLiquiescent (I seem unable to spell anything these days
) rock is the mechanism of tectonic plate movement. That (not flood water) is what causes the mountains and faults.
Definition of liquescent:
"being or tending to become liquid : MELTING"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liquescent
We've both agreed the mantle is solid rock. Again, it is ad hoc to say that even though it is solid rock, but it acts like a liquid.
Of course the Flood theory doesn't posit millions of years. That's the problem. Thousands of years is not really enough to allow the rock strata to be folded over like they were soft (any argument that they were heat - soft works less well if they are being caused by cold flood water) never mind a year or two as in the Bible.
The folding was on the order of days/weeks in the FM. There's no problem with that if the sediments were soft, and there's a proposed mechanism for the folding, and it fits the sedimentary pattern.
But I can't grasp how the water moved the hydroplate which had either expelled the flood water into the air or (more feasible) collapsed to expose the water as a 'Flood'.
When the crust split, it created the oceanic ridges. Brown says the ridges formed by the weight of the crust pushing down and then forming the ridges. I believe instead the ridges were formed by the negative water pressure gushing out of the split in the crust, like a giant vacuum cleaner sucking the floor and pulling everything up. There were two forces causing horizontal movement of the crust - the water coming out of the splits and the tilt of the oceanic ridge.
I can't see any mechanism other than tectonic plate movement that would then cause the strata to buckle as mountains. Flood water above the basalt would just lie there or surge about if there was a storm. I can't see any mechanism other than tectonic plate movement that would then cause the strata to buckle as mountains.
As the hydroplate eventually hit the underlaying basalt layer when all the subterranean water was gone, it stopped the horizontal movement of the hydroplate. But, the sedimentary layers on top of the hydroplate kept moving due to momentum. It is at this point the sedimentary layers buckled and formed the mountains. Think of it as a pile of rocks on a rail car. The rail car is the hydroplate and the pile of rocks is the sedimentary layers. Then the rail car loses its wheels and grinds to a stop on the railroad tracks. But the rocks on top of the rail car would fly off the rail car.
Rather it supports the idea that water is a common element in the universe and is an integral part of planet -formation.
Then it's no problem to posit a huge underground water reservoir prior to the global flood.
But the tilting of the unconformity is below the flood - caused unconformity. You see the problem? You are trying to cram two geological events divided by this unconformity into ine event of a couple of years.
The two events are the two splits of the crust west and east of the Americas. The west split resulted in the supergroup. The east split resulted in the layers above that.
Mesas and buttes whether on land or water will deposit the eroded material in flat layers (strata). I have already explained that this is observed in real time today. It happens. it is not some guesswork explanation.
The question is what caused the
flat erosion in Monument valley. Yes, deposits formed the original strata (which the mesas/buttes originally were part of). But some erosion happened after all the layers were deposited that caused the vast flat areas and the occasional mesas/buttes that we see now. Note, this type of pattern only exists in a few areas in the country. And the FM as well can reliably predict where these areas should be.
The standard model says it's caused by collision with tectonic plates under the sea (or on land in the Himalayas, for instance) but how does a flood on top of the lands it is stratifying cause continental plates to collide especially if they are moving apart?
Mountain formation is by the momentum of the sedimentary strata buckling as explained above.
For the Himalayas, what do you mean by "on land"?
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 3:01 am
"Scientists have long speculated that water is trapped in a rocky layer of the Earth's mantle located between the lower mantle and upper mantle, at depths between 250 miles and 410 miles. Jacobsen and Schmandt are the first to provide direct evidence that there may be water in this area of the mantle, known as the "transition zone," on a regional scale. The region extends across most of the interior of the United States."
So where,
otseng, mate, did you get the claim that scientistys refused to believe it when hte deep drill found it. Please give your source for this grubby claim, which I do hope that you can blame on someone else.
I was just quoting what the article said, I'm not saying subterranean water cannot exist. So, your source then confirms the FM model that subterranean water can exist.
Ok.
While I'm here, let's set out the analogy
Sorry, I do not see the direct correlation.
Let's go back a step. Do any of the witnesses claim Jesus did
not resurrect from the dead? This is the doctrinal point of the argument.
Anything else is non-doctrinal points:
"earthquake and descending angel who frightens off the tomb -guard"
"angelic message in Matthew"
"Jesus appears and tells the Marys to tell the disciples to go to Galilee"
Even
if all these non-doctrinal points were fictitious, it would not alter any core Christian beliefs.
I was going to say "Damn'
