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

[Miles]

.


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

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

Or doesn't it matter?

.

[TRANSPONDER]

... Breaking a continent does not explain strata malformation - that would cause breaking into larger or smaller chunks of stratified rock, ....

I assume many of the "fountains of great deep" were on Mid Atlantic ridge. From there the water escaped from below dry land/original continent. And when the water came from there, it washed all material also towards America, causing strata formations and when the parts of the original continent sunk, they pushed those sediments/strata so that it formed orogenic mountains.

Assume? Where is the evidence? Where is the logical model? This may look workable in a tabletop model, but imagine a rock layer stretching over the Atlantic on a round earth. How on earth will it stay put? Where are the pieces? You blithely recast them as 'strata' (of various material including sea shells and of course fossils appearing to show an evolution but is really showing that hippos can swim better than Ichthyosaurs. This makes o sense, and deep time geology and evolutuion explains the evidence better than your strange model.

Nor does the matching of America and Africa suggest that a hole was bashed in between them. Your model is unfeasible and does not fit the evidence.

The Mid-Atlantic ridge is the "hole" between America and Africa.

Last t I looked 'ridge' is not a synonym for 'hole'. even is this improbable model worked, let alone fitted the evidence, it only applies to the Atlantic. It doesn't affect the Pacific at all. In fact it affects nobody except people who were living on top of the hydroplate. Noah in the Middle east would not need a Ark. Nobody would. Even the people on the Iberian peninsula would just see the Atlantic Hydroplate collapse, and say 'well that sucks for the Atlanteans' and go into tea. It does not even work as a local flood, let alone validating one done by God to wipe out humanity except for a tiny group of breeding pairs.

...The 'bottleneck' would look like genetic disorder - a phenomena called in the expertise, 'inbreeding'. If it doesn't show up as physical deformations and heath issues, it is plainly seen in the DNA.

It would be nice to know more accurately what it would mean in practice. If we believe what the Bible tells, after creation everything was good and at the time of the great flood, everything could have been genetically still much better than nowadays. Because we don't know accurately the situation before the flood, it is not possible to say what kind of bottleneck there was.

It would be nice if you did even minimal research. Look up 'dog indreeding' or 'the hapsburgs' and see the evidence. Inbreeding genetic problems is as known as alcoholic - related kidney failure and to say 'I never heard of this so it isn't real' just discredits your entire case as you don't understand the matter, even beyond your Hydroplate model shows you don't even think kit through.

Buit as always, I have to say - carry on, as your reilience and determination is giving us something to do, and it allows us to show how bad creationist apologetics is.

P.s and cue 'the collapsed debris raised the water level so it flooded everywhere except maby China, Egypt and anywhere doesn't have a flood legend'.

Trans. "So how did the water go down afterwards?"

1213 "The weight of the collapsed hydroplate compressed the sea floor an the Flood ran back into the Atlantic".

Trans. 29,000 feet above hydroplate level? Surely the hydroplate wasn't 30 thousand feet tick, or was it?"

1213 "Maybe it was..' (looks at the magic wand but resists). ..'but maybe some people survived on the higher mountains, that's why their flood legends differ from the Bible..... *inspiration* of course, it rained, too."

Trans wearing his bloody awkward hat, "So if the rain raised the flood level to above K2, where did that water go afterwards?"

1213 gives up and grabs the magic wand "God did it".

Or you are free to do your own screenplay. And I just remembered. In your model, why are the orogenic mountains in the West of the US and the East of Asia, rather than on the east seaboard of the US and Brazil, or the West of Africa and Europe where your model had the tectonic pressure? You see that ad hoc explanation just produce more problems.

[1213]

…This may look workable in a tabletop model, but imagine a rock layer stretching over the Atlantic on a round earth. How on earth will it stay put?

The water would have supported it, if the water could not escape from below the dry land. The reason why the flood came is that for some reason there came cracks to that original continent, which is why the water begun to escape from below the dry land. And when the water escaped, it could not have supported the land. And that is why the dry land sank.

Where are the pieces?

The pieces are on the places there were before the flood, except they are in many parts under water nowadays. For example, the Mid Atlantic Ridge is likely one of these seams of the pieces of the original continent.

This makes o sense, and deep time geology and evolutuion explains the evidence better than your strange model.

I disagree with that. But, I am sorry, if “my model” is too difficult to understand.

Last t I looked 'ridge' is not a synonym for 'hole'.

That is true, but, the ridge is one of the cracks on the original continent, from the water below dry land escaped and thus is like a hole, because from there the water could come out.

even is this improbable model worked, let alone fitted the evidence, it only applies to the Atlantic. It doesn't affect the Pacific at all. In fact it affects nobody except people who were living on top of the hydroplate. Noah in the Middle east would not need a Ark. Nobody would. Even the people on the Iberian peninsula would just see the Atlantic Hydroplate collapse, and say 'well that sucks for the Atlanteans' and go into tea.

It looks like Pacific Ocean was ocean also before the great flood. The first and only ocean before the flood. All other areas were dry land, until the flood and collapse of the original continent. And it affected to all continent, because they were formed and sank in that event.

Look up 'dog indreeding' or 'the hapsburgs' and see the evidence. …

In Biblical point of view, things were not the same as in modern days, because there had not yet been enough degeneration.

So if the rain raised the flood level to above K2, where did that water go afterwards?

Water is still here, it just looks less, because ocean floor level has gone down, causing it to look like mountains are rising.

…In your model, why are the orogenic mountains in the West of the US and the East of Asia…

Because the main source of flooding water was the Mid Atlantic Ridge. From there the flood went to east and west and carried stuff to west America and east Asia. And when the parts of original continent sank, it caused pressure to those directions and pushed the sediments so that the mountain were formed to the current places.

[TRANSPONDER]

…This may look workable in a tabletop model, but imagine a rock layer stretching over the Atlantic on a round earth. How on earth will it stay put?

The water would have supported it, if the water could not escape from below the dry land. The reason why the flood came is that for some reason there came cracks to that original continent, which is why the water begun to escape from below the dry land. And when the water escaped, it could not have supported the land. And that is why the dry land sank.

I doubt that water would support an entire supercontinent which it appears is the model. As you say below "It looks like Pacific Ocean was ocean also before the great flood. The first and only ocean before the flood. All other areas were dry land, until the flood and collapse of the original continent. And it affected to all continent," But I'm not a structural engineer. so I can't prove it . So it seems the theory is that all the world was water apart from this supercontinent, presumably held up at the edges because you surely won't say it was floating. It broke up for some reason and all sank. Total flood. Then this odd idea that the sunken pieces compressed the ocean floor (forcing gas out) in order to make the water sink below the level of the sunken piece. And it seems that you argue that the actual mountains were forced up by the pressure of water. That has some problems as I shall argue.

Where are the pieces?

The pieces are on the places there were before the flood, except they are in many parts under water nowadays. For example, the Mid Atlantic Ridge is likely one of these seams of the pieces of the original continent.

The ridge looks like a ridge - a line of undersea mountains, if you will. And your model will argue that the 'pieces' are the present continents, revealed when the sea floor was forced down by these pieces. You further seem to argue that the 'flood' forced these continents east and west causing the Atlantic. But I see no way that the ridge which looks like a ridge could be a feature of your model.

I disagree with that. But, I am sorry, if “my model” is too difficult to understand.

I am having to get the whole picture in bits s you seemed originally to say that a comet or something bashed a hole in the supercontinent causing the Atlantic, but now it seems clear that the entire broken continent sank and was pushed apart, producing the present Atlantic. I see no way that sinking chunks were 'pushed apart'. Explain how tht happens, and explain why the pressure did not force up mountains on the nearer side of the pieces but on the further side. Also explain chalk strata which are made up of sea shells. Explain also how strata were formed when in your model, the continent chunks stayed intact. Where did all the strata with the creatures in come from? Explain also salt mines - the remains of dried up oceans in the strata.

Last t I looked 'ridge' is not a synonym for 'hole'.

That is true, but, the ridge is one of the cracks on the original continent, from the water below dry land escaped and thus is like a hole, because from there the water could come out.

The ridge looks like a mountain range undersea, not like a crack or hole. I suppose you could claim it as a support for this floating continent.

even if this improbable model worked, let alone fitted the evidence, it only applies to the Atlantic. It doesn't affect the Pacific at all. In fact it affects nobody except people who were living on top of the hydroplate. Noah in the Middle east would not need a Ark. Nobody would. Even the people on the Iberian peninsula would just see the Atlantic Hydroplate collapse, and say 'well that sucks for the Atlanteans' and go into tea.

It looks like Pacific Ocean was ocean also before the great flood. The first and only ocean before the flood. All other areas were dry land, until the flood and collapse of the original continent. And it affected to all continent, because they were formed and sank in that event.

I posted my problems with this model above. Also corrected a few typos I missed.

Look up 'dog indreeding' or 'the hapsburgs' and see the evidence. …

In Biblical point of view, things were not the same as in modern days, because there had not yet been enough degeneration.

In the Biblical point of view, any 'degeneration' happened at the Fall. Why would the genetics still e perfect until after the Flood and then gradually deteriorate
from the hundreds of years lifespan? Ad evidentially lifespans were rather short back in the days of the pyramids, and have been getting longer as lifestyle has improved. Your explanation does no fit the facts.

So if the rain raised the flood level to above K2, where did that water go afterwards?

Water is still here, it just looks less, because ocean floor level has gone down, causing it to look like mountains are rising.

But that isn't your model. Your model holds that the mountains were pushed up by the flood pushing the pieces apart, forcing up the mountains. I'm sorry if you don't understand your own model.

…In your model, why are the orogenic mountains in the West of the US and the East of Asia…

Because the main source of flooding water was the Mid Atlantic Ridge. From there the flood went to east and west and carried stuff to west America and east Asia. And when the parts of original continent sank, it caused pressure to those directions and pushed the sediments so that the mountain were formed to the current places.

That makes no sense. The mid Atlantic ridge was on the sea floor with the waters supporting the supercontinent. The Flood was caused by the hydroplate bits sinking, not anything coming from the sea floor. You don't understand your own model. Particularly that sinking continents cannot have pushed themselves in any direction. It requires some force pushing them apart. Cue: Fountains of the deep from the middle, I suppose, but then again, where did all that water go? You have to already struggle to claim pushing down the ocean floor so much that the sunken land reappeared, but producing flood waters in the Atlantic to push the continents apart makes even deeper ocean to explain away.

I need hardly say that your model looks ludicrous to me and of course deep time geology and animal evolution fits the evidence of stratified sequential critters better than your model does. Others will have to decide, but I'm just intrigued to see how you will explain the problems.

[TRANSPONDER]

I can't give a link as the source appears 'not secure' on my computer, so I won't link to it, but I post a few objections to the Hydroplate theory. the influential invention of Engineer Walt Brown and appears central to much of Creationism, though it seems that Creation Miistries disagrees, favouring the ice cloud origin of the Flood.

Anyway, here it is, for what it is.

"Brown's Flood model requires that the proposed water reservoir be totally sealed under the Earth's crust. This precludes any significant earthquakes, meteorite impacts, or fissures in the crust anywhere on entire earth, even though such phenomena are well evidenced throughout the geologic record. Recently one of Brown's supporters suggested that this is a circular argument (Hurlbut, 2015), since Brown holds that meteorites came from the Earth. However, one reason it is not circular is that meteorites and impact craters are known from Precambrian strata, which Brown and most other YECs view as pre-Flood rocks. Moreover, the ages of these strata are derived from several independent dating methods (discussed in further detail later).
Even without earthquakes or meteorite impacts, the only way a surface crust could cover a global expanse of water below it is if it were almost perfectly smooth, lacking any mountains even hills. Otherwise the crust would buckle, massively fracture, and release the subterranean waters (Morton, 2003a). Since Brown accepts the presence of pre-Flood mountains (which are mentioned in the Bible), Brown evidently realized that he needed something to help support the crust. Thus, he proposes that on Days 2 and 3 of the "creation week" (which he takes as literal solar days), the granite crust "sagged down" deeply in places, all the way to the floor of the rock below the water chambers, forming supporting "pillars." However, this only exchanges one set of problems for another. First, there is no empirical evidence for such pillars. Second, miles-thick granite plates would not "sag" and deform, especially in a matter of days, without extensive and massive cracking, which would immediately release the pressurized water. Brown suggests the granite crust would act like "putty" while under pressure, allowing it to deform without much cracking, and that any cracks would self-seal before they reached the water chambers. However, granite is an extremely hard and crystalline type of rock, and does not deform to any significant degree without massive fracturing, except when near its melting point, and over long time periods (Nelson, 2012). In contrast, Brown suggests the pillars formed in days, and if the Earth was hot enough to melt granite during the "creation week," it would only exacerbate the already immense heat problems discussed below, and kill all life on earth.

For years Brown held that the granite "hydroplates" were 10 miles thick, even though no evidence supported that assumption, and despite extensive geologic evidence indicating that the Earth's crust ranges from 20 to 60 miles thick. Although the current (8th edition) of Brown's book still includes the 10 mi. figure, he recently modified his website to indicate that the pre-Flood crust varied from place to place, and was between 20 to 60 miles thick. While this allows one facet of his model to better coincide with geologic data, it exacerbates the problems discussed above. First, it worsens the irregularities that would invite cracks in the crust. Second, the greater thickness of the granite crust would make it even more difficult to deform severely and form the "pillars" without extensive cracking and earthquakes, immediately releasing the pressurized water below.

What Initiated the Flood?
Brown claims that centuries of "tidal pumping" from the pull of the Moon's gravity led to the eventual rupture of the hydroplates, implying that the start of the Flood was a natural and inevitable event. However, elsewhere he indicates that the Flood was directly initiated by God in response to mankind's rampant sinfulness, in accord with his literal interpretation of Genesis. Even other YECs such as have noticed this inconsistency and its troubling theological implications. Oard (2009) notes that this would imply that God created the earth as a "ticking time bomb." Brown denies this, stating (p. 371) that the Flood was "not inevitable at that time," because at the end of the creation week, everything created was "very good." But Brown immediately goes on to describe how God made the Earth with subterranean waters during the creation week, followed by various natural processes that eventually led to the crustal eruptions--which seems to reinforce rather than resolve the discrepancy. Adding to the confusion, Brown suggests on p. 376 of his book that if humans did not sin, they may have learned to drill into the Earth for geothermal energy and somehow averted the flood in the process. However, by Brown's own comments elsewhere, any small opening into the super-heated, super-pressurized waters below would have caused a massively violent eruption and initiated the Flood. Indeed, a few sentences later he suggests that because mankind sinned, human activities may have initiated the Flood by weakening the crust. In any case, his suggestions about human activities seem to not only contradict each other, but also his initial claim that the Flood was due entirely to natural, geologic events, and his later assertion that the Flood was directly initiated by God. While many readers of Brown's book would already be scratching their heads, Brown then states a "second possibility" (actually fourth, by my count) is that God "simply commanded the Earth's crust to crack or a pillar to collapse", adding that this is "not difficult to imagine." He then states, "The hydroplate does not assume that a miracle happened." Perhaps not, but didn't he just suggest it may well have? Good luck to anyone trying to sort all this out."

Now, although you don't mention this hypothesis as your model, I doubt that it wasn't the origin, but your model may differ in some ways. But you see that Brown had to modify his model to overcome problems, and you seem to have changed your model or left some mechanism open - just they happened somehow. But there are still the problem of strata with apparently evolved form in them. There is also rock dating which you can't easily dismiss because RATE tried and failed to debunk radiometric dating.

You still also have the genetics problems that longer lifespans is not supported by evidence, the sheer impossible logistics of the Ark and the killer in my view - nothing to eat when the Ark opened up. Don't touch the magic wand - this has to work in a practical way. As soon as you say 'God did a miracle' you don't need any of the Flood and Ark at all.

[brunumb]

Water is still here, it just looks less, because ocean floor level has gone down, causing it to look like mountains are rising.

No matter what upping and downing of the ocean floor you want to play with, if the entire planet is covered in water to a depth of several miles, there is nowhere for it to go after the event.

[1213]

Water is still here, it just looks less, because ocean floor level has gone down, causing it to look like mountains are rising.

No matter what upping and downing of the ocean floor you want to play with, if the entire planet is covered in water to a depth of several miles, there is nowhere for it to go after the event.

Where do you get the idea of several miles on top of entire planet?

...fifteen cubits upward...
Gen. 7:20

According to the Bible, mountains were under about 270 inch of water (~7 meters), not miles. The result of the flood event was ice age, and much of the water was collected to glaciers. And much of the water seems to have disappeared, because the sunken material has been compressed, which has caused the water level to decrease.

[1213]

… Then this odd idea that the sunken pieces compressed the ocean floor (forcing gas out) in order to make the water sink below the level of the sunken piece. And it seems that you argue that the actual mountains were forced up by the pressure of water. That has some problems as I shall argue….

Not by the pressure of water. Water carried the stuff towards the edges of the original continent, and when the pieces of the continent begun to sink, the edges were compressed. And the compression you could berhaps understand, if you would take for example piece of paper and fold it in the middle so that it forms letter pyramid on the table, or is like A. Then, if you press from the top of it, you can see how the edges on surface of the table move from each other and the paper spreads and at the same time height decreases. The same happened in the flood event, the original continent was basically like a dome and when the top of it could not be hold up anymore, it begun to flatten, which caused compression on its edges.

The ridge looks like a ridge - a line of undersea mountains, if you will. And your model will argue that the 'pieces' are the present continents, revealed when the sea floor was forced down by these pieces. You further seem to argue that the 'flood' forced these continents east and west causing the Atlantic. But I see no way that the ridge which looks like a ridge could be a feature of your model.

It looks like a crack on broken continent.

…you seemed originally to say that a comet or something bashed a hole in the supercontinent causing the Atlantic, …

The comet could have caused instability to the original continent that caused cracks on the continent. And when those cracks happened, water could escape and speed up the collapse.

In the Biblical point of view, any 'degeneration' happened at the Fall. Why would the genetics still e perfect until after the Flood and then gradually deteriorate

They were not perfect at that time, but they were better than now.

[boatsnguitars]

"I assume ..."

Versus, scientists who study this for a living, collect hard data, and really try to understand it.

Enough said, no?

[brunumb]

Water is still here, it just looks less, because ocean floor level has gone down, causing it to look like mountains are rising.

No matter what upping and downing of the ocean floor you want to play with, if the entire planet is covered in water to a depth of several miles, there is nowhere for it to go after the event.

Where do you get the idea of several miles on top of entire planet?

...fifteen cubits upward...
Gen. 7:20

According to the Bible, mountains were under about 270 inch of water (~7 meters), not miles. The result of the flood event was ice age, and much of the water was collected to glaciers. And much of the water seems to have disappeared, because the sunken material has been compressed, which has caused the water level to decrease.

OK. But you seem to be overlooking the fact that the water level was such that the highest mountains were submerged. 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.

[1213]

....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.