28 May 12
Originally posted by sonhouseThe water came from several sources and not knowing how the face of the Earth looked before the flood I wouldn't know how to hazard a guess on how much water it actually took to flood it as descibed.
It would out weigh all the oceans by 3 to 1 at least, so that would lead to a loss of salinity, which would kill many species of salt water fish directly.
Kelly
28 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is well known that God in his wisdom has designed a system whereby any airborne
If it rained 40 days and nights, one thing is it would have been raining 6 inches a minute. If it went past the top of the tallest mountain, Mt. Everest, say it rained 30,000 feet, then why are the oceans still salty?
pollutants which are in suspension and not heavy enough to reach the ocean are
combined, through the motion of ocean spray, with the salts in the ocean. As a
consequence they are made heavy enough to reach the ocean floor where huge ocean
vents filter the pollutants. This perpetual system reeks of design and intelligence
and is a valid proof that the earth was designed for and to sustain life, indefinitely!
28 May 12
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It is well known that God in his wisdom has designed a system whereby any airborne
pollutants which are in suspension and not heavy enough to reach the ocean are
combined, through the motion of ocean spray, with the salts in the ocean. As a
consequence they are made heavy enough to reach the ocean floor where huge ocean
vents filter the poll ...[text shortened]... igence
and is a valid proof that the earth was designed for and to sustain life, indefinitely!
It is well known that God in his wisdom has designed a system whereby any airborne
pollutants which are in suspension and not heavy enough to reach the ocean are
combined, through the motion of ocean spray, with the salts in the ocean.
such a mechanism is known to play only an extremely miner role in removing fine airborne particles for it is mainly RAIN that washes out such particles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates#Removal_processes
“...smallest particles (less than 1 micrometer) can stay in the atmosphere for weeks and are MOSTLY removed by precipitation. ...” (my emphasis)
As a
consequence they are made heavy enough to reach the ocean floor where huge ocean
vents filter the pollutants.
what on earth are you talking about? Have you got any evidence or premise for that claim that “ huge ocean vents filter the pollutants”?
And HOW would these “vents” do that?
And are you talking about volcanic “vents” or some kind of other type of “vents” and, if so, what kind and exactly where are they on the ocean floor?
and is a valid proof that the earth was designed for and to sustain life,
as I have already pointed out, salt spray has only an extremely miner role in removing fine airborne particles so life will continual just fine without that mechanism.
Also, you have not given any evidence for the existence of these ocean “vents” filtering out pollution.
28 May 12
http://creation.com/andrew-snelling-geology-in-six-days
Evidence of the Flood
As a geologist I am also interested in the biblical account of earth history, particularly the record of the year-long global catastrophic Flood in the days of Noah that must have totally reshaped the entire surface of the globe. In fact, based upon the biblical description of the Flood event, it is logical to predict that it would leave behind billions of dead animals and plants buried in sediments eroded and deposited by the moving flood waters, that would all end up being fossils in rock layers laid down by water all over the globe. And that’s exactly what we find—layers of water-deposited sedimentary rocks containing fossils all over the earth.
There is impressive evidence that fossil deposits and rock strata were formed catastrophically. There are also many indications that there were not millions of years, or even thousands, between various rock units. The rock sequence in the Grand Canyon is a case in point. Not only can it be shown that each of the rock units exposed in the walls of the canyon must have formed very rapidly under catastrophic watery conditions, but there are not significant time gaps between the various rock layers. Thus, the total time involved to put in place some 4,000 feet (1,200 meters) thickness of rock strata is well within the time constraints the Bible stipulates for the Flood event.
What is also spectacular about the Grand Canyon area in northern Arizona is the scale and magnitude of the rock units and the awesomeness of the canyon itself. One can physically walk up and down the sequence of rock units that go back before the Flood, and then right through the Flood event up until post-Flood times. While the sequence is not complete, there are few places where such a complete sequence is so fully exposed and so much evidence for the Flood and its catastrophic nature.
No geologist denies that the oceans once covered the land, since rocks containing marine fossils may be found at elevations above sea level today anywhere from one to five miles (1.6 to 8 km). That the ocean waters should have covered the land is exactly what one would expect to happen during a global flood, while earth movements concurrent with the retreating flood waters would be expected to leave strata with marine fossils now perched high and dry at considerable elevations, just as we observe, for example, in the Himalayas.
In Australia, without doubt, one of the most impressive areas demonstrating catastrophic deposition during the Flood is Ayers Rock (or Uluru). The scale of the sandstone beds that have been upturned to form the rock gives clear testimony to the scale of deposition in the Flood. The mineral grains making up the sandstone are a witness to the cataclysmic speed of the deposition process and the young age of this awesome desert landform.
By Andrew Snelling, Geologist, Phd
28 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by humyYet it still happens, the fact that other processes also contribute is neither here norIt is well known that God in his wisdom has designed a system whereby any airborne
pollutants which are in suspension and not heavy enough to reach the ocean are
combined, through the motion of ocean spray, with the salts in the ocean.
such a mechanism is known to play only an extremely miner role in removing fine airborne particles for ...[text shortened]... ou have not given any evidence for the existence of these ocean “vents” filtering out pollution.
there and proves nothing. Yes i am talking of volcanic vents, how many other types of
vents do you find on the ocean floor. Evidence?? I see this poor theist must continue
the battle against ignorance,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File😀eep_sea_vent_chemistry_diagram.jpg
28 May 12
10 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yet it still happens, the fact that other processes also contribute is neither here nor
there and proves nothing. Yes i am talking of volcanic vents, how many other types of
vents do you find on the ocean floor. Evidence?? I see this poor theist must continue
the battle against ignorance,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File😀eep_sea_vent_chemistry_diagram.jpg
Evidence?? I see this poor theist must continue
the battle against ignorance,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileeep_sea_vent_chemistry_diagram.jpg
the link doesn't say nor imply anything about deep sea volcanic vents removing pollution particles of any kind that would have gone into the ocean as a result of sticking together via salt spray in the atmosphere.
In fact, it is clear from the diagram that deep sea volcanic vents release poisonous gases along with particulate matter in the form of “black smoke”! So, if anything, the vents contribute to pollution albeit in the form of natural pollution!
so you are right: you are that “poor theist” that “must continue the battle against ignorance” ( your own ignorance of course ) .
Have you actually got any link that shows that volcanic vents remove pollution that was in the atmosphere and was taken out of the atmophere as a result of particles sticking together via salt spray as you said?
I should also point out that, for deep see vents to have any non-trivial effect on life other than the relatively little amount of life in very close proximity to the vents, they must vent gasses over many millions of years so this would not be consistent with the young-Earth model if your claim here is that this was 'arranged' by divine intervention to benefit life in general.
28 May 12
Originally posted by humyI think you guys are getting off topic. Whether there or deep sea vents or not has nothing to do with wether there was a worldwide flood or not. I just presented a section to you from a PHD GEOLOGIST that says that there is evidence of a worldwide flood all over the Earth. That should settle it. Creationists 1 Evolutionists 0 Looks like another one bits the dust.Evidence?? I see this poor theist must continue
the battle against ignorance,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileeep_sea_vent_chemistry_diagram.jpg
the link doesn't say nor imply anything about deep sea volcanic vents removing pollution particles of any kind that would have gone into the ocean as a result of sticking together via salt s ...[text shortened]... our claim here is that this was 'arranged' by divine intervention to benefit life in general.
29 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou mean a Phd geologist who happens to have a creationist agenda. Science goes out the window when there is an agreed upon agenda beforehand since you know he will only put out that data that supports the YEC pathetic argument and ignore any data that refutes his argument.
I think you guys are getting off topic. Whether there or deep sea vents or not has nothing to do with wether there was a worldwide flood or not. I just presented a section to you from a PHD GEOLOGIST that says that there is evidence of a worldwide flood all over the Earth. That should settle it. Creationists 1 Evolutionists 0 [b]Looks like another one bits the dust.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWsJcg-g1pg[/b]
He could have 20 Phd's and still not be a real scientist when he works with an agenda. BTW, there are scientists proven to have agenda's that have been found out on more than one occasion and have been severely dealt with and having nothing to do with YEC or evolution because true scientists cannot have a built in agenda.
If true scientists come up with refutations of evolution so be it, but nobody buys the BS handed out by YEC scientists. They lose whatever reputation they used to have by their plots to twist science into a weapon.
29 May 12
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is unfair to just accuse someone of not being a serious scientist becasue of his religious belief. That is prejudice in action on your part. You need to come up with a better reason than that. I really believe it is the scientists on the evolutionary side that have the agenda and are more apt to googlefudge the facts.
You mean a Phd geologist who happens to have a creationist agenda. Science goes out the window when there is an agreed upon agenda beforehand since you know he will only put out that data that supports the YEC pathetic argument and ignore any data that refutes his argument. He could have 20 Phd's and still not be a real scientist when he works with an age ...[text shortened]... one occasion and have been severely dealt with and having nothing to do with YEC or evolution.
29 May 12
Originally posted by RJHinds
It is unfair to just accuse someone of not being a serious scientist becasue of his religious belief. That is prejudice in action on your part. You need to come up with a better reason than that. I really believe it is the scientists on the evolutionary side that have the agenda and are more apt to googlefudge the facts.
It is unfair to just accuse someone of not being a serious scientist because of his RELIGIOUS BELIEF. (my emphasis)
that is NOT what sonhouse said. He said/implied nothing of the sort.
He said “true scientists cannot have a BUILT IN AGENDA.” (my emphasis) and spoke of a “creationist agenda” and neither “creationist agenda” nor “BUILT IN AGENDA” equates with “ RELIGIOUS BELIEF” for he spoke of “agenda” and NOT of “belief” and “agenda” clearly does NOT equate with “belief”.
29 May 12
Originally posted by humyI know what he means from previous dealings with him.It is unfair to just accuse someone of not being a serious scientist because of his RELIGIOUS BELIEF. (my emphasis)
that is NOT what sonhouse said. He said/implied nothing of the sort.
He said “true scientists cannot have a BUILT IN AGENDA.” (my emphasis) and spoke of a “creationist agenda” and neither “creationist agenda” nor “BUILT IN AGEND ...[text shortened]... for he spoke of “agenda” and NOT of “belief” and “agenda” clearly does NOT equate with “belief”.
29 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by humysalt spray has only an extremely miner role in removing fine airborne particles -It is well known that God in his wisdom has designed a system whereby any airborne
pollutants which are in suspension and not heavy enough to reach the ocean are
combined, through the motion of ocean spray, with the salts in the ocean.
such a mechanism is known to play only an extremely miner role in removing fine airborne particles for ...[text shortened]... ou have not given any evidence for the existence of these ocean “vents” filtering out pollution.
humy
when in actual fact,
research has shown that pollution particles in the air suppress precipitation from
clouds over land. Polluted clouds over the ocean, however, more readily produce
rain. The difference is attributed to sea-salt aerosols, which originate in sea spray.
Water droplets that form on pollution particles in the atmosphere tend to be too
small to fall as raindrops; hence, they just stay in suspension. Sea-salt aerosols
seed oceanic clouds by attracting these small droplets and forming larger ones. The
result is rain, which also helps to purify the atmosphere of pollutants.
an extremely minor role - Humy,
dear humy perhaps if you refrained from using adjectives in your sentences and
instead exclusively made reference to the empirical scientific data, you might do
better. I understand though, that dogma and conjecture as well as sensationalistic
tabloid style language are necessary to give some kind of credence to your
materialism. I am also finding evidence for my other assertion of filtering taking
place of these originally airborne pollutants through hydrothermal oceanic vents,
after which you will be made to eat your hat and my shorts!
29 May 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
salt spray has only an extremely miner role in removing fine airborne particles -
humy
when in actual fact,
research has shown that pollution particles in the air suppress precipitation from
clouds over land. Polluted clouds over the ocean, however, more readily produce
rain. The difference is attributed to sea-salt aerosols, which origi ...[text shortened]... hrough hydrothermal oceanic vents,
after which you will be made to eat your hat and my shorts!
The
result is rain, which also helps to purify the atmosphere of pollutants.
there will be rain even if there was no sea-salt aerosols and no salt in the sea.
I am also finding evidence for my other assertion of filtering taking
place of these originally airborne pollutants through hydrothermal oceanic vents,
I will look forward to that.
I will be fascinated in how you can mysteriously find such non-existent evidence for such a belief that has absolutely no premise whatsoever. I have no idea where you got that hypothesis from. Where did you get it from? The Bible?
Have you found any links yet that show this “evidence” for “filtering taking place of these originally airborne pollutants through hydrothermal oceanic vents”? -please show me!
29 May 12
Originally posted by humyYou are going to love them "shorts". 😀The
result is rain, which also helps to purify the atmosphere of pollutants.
there will be rain even if there was no sea-salt aerosols and no salt in the sea.
I am also finding evidence for my other assertion of filtering taking
place of these originally airborne pollutants through hydrothermal oceanic vents,
I wil ...[text shortened]... ce of these originally airborne pollutants through hydrothermal oceanic vents”? -please show me!