The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby hughfarey » Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:How many of you have had a cup of ice sitting somewhere and you fill up the cup with something to drink and the ice stays stuck to the bottom of the cup until the ice melts enough to break the bond?
This is irresistible! I shall go and carry out exactly this experiment immediately! Watch this space...

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby Audie » Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:04 pm

hughfarey wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:How many of you have had a cup of ice sitting somewhere and you fill up the cup with something to drink and the ice stays stuck to the bottom of the cup until the ice melts enough to break the bond?
This is irresistible! I shall go and carry out exactly this experiment immediately! Watch this space...


Of course, glaciers are moving, sliding along the bedrock. Sometimes there is liquid water
under them. (Not frozen to the cup)

A glacier is hardly one big piece of solid ice anyway. Anyone foolish enough to think so would be down a crevasse soon enough.

But IF glaciers were frozen down..

I did rough calculations-you could see what you comee up with- to see what sort of
buoyancy you'd get from a mile, two miles, five miles of ice. How much lift per square
foot. How many tons.

A mere girl, no more than say, five ft tall, could break an ice cube free, bare handed.

How many tons per square foot is this ice-glue to withstand? Do calculate it. Not that it is frozen down anyway. Maybehe'd hear it from a fellow believer. A awful asian atheist :D, not so much.

For a visual, here is some floating ice. No five miles thick, but that is a lot of ice
lifted pretty high, Five miles of ice would have what, about 2,500 feet above water.

https://www.google.com/search?q=antarct ... 765IdNM%3A

I wonder how confident our hero of the ice cube in a bowl would be, if we took
a column of 2500 ft of ice, froze one end to a high ceiling, and let him stand under it when we removed the supports. Is that ice gonna stay stuck, or is one world trade center atop another
with Washington monument on top worth of ice gonna break free and bonk him?

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4116
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby abelcainsbrother » Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:28 pm

Audie wrote:
hughfarey wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:How many of you have had a cup of ice sitting somewhere and you fill up the cup with something to drink and the ice stays stuck to the bottom of the cup until the ice melts enough to break the bond?
This is irresistible! I shall go and carry out exactly this experiment immediately! Watch this space...


Of course, glaciers are moving, sliding along the bedrock. Sometimes there is liquid water
under them. (Not frozen to the cup)

A glacier is hardly one big piece of solid ice anyway. Anyone foolish enough to think so would be down a crevasse soon enough.

But IF glaciers were frozen down..

I did rough calculations-you could see what you comee up with- to see what sort of
buoyancy you'd get from a mile, two miles, five miles of ice. How much lift per square
foot. How many tons.

A mere girl, no more than say, five ft tall, could break an ice cube free, bare handed.

How many tons per square foot is this ice-glue to withstand? Do calculate it. Not that it is frozen down anyway. Maybehe'd hear it from a fellow believer. A awful asian atheist :D, not so much.

For a visual, here is some floating ice. No five miles thick, but that is a lot of ice
lifted pretty high, Five miles of ice would have what, about 2,500 feet above water.

https://www.google.com/search?q=antarct ... 765IdNM%3A

I wonder how confident our hero of the ice cube in a bowl would be, if we took
a column of 2500 ft of ice, froze one end to a high ceiling, and let him stand under it when we removed the supports. Is that ice gonna stay stuck, or is one world trade center atop another
with Washington monument on top worth of ice gonna break free and bonk him?



I think we all know ice floats so no need to point that out and I'm not denying that but in certain circumstances it can remain stuck to the bottom submerged under water and fresh water is less bouyant than salt water too. I'm just presenting evidence to show it is possible the glacier ice can survive a world wide flood but even if it did lift it up,it could be sat back down also.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby hughfarey » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:29 am

"Fresh water is less buoyant than salt water too". No. Fresh water is more buoyant than salt water. It is less dense than salt water and floats on top of it. Because it is less dense, objects floating in it are less buoyant in fresh water than salt water, but fresh water itself is more buoyant than salt water.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 17810
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby RickD » Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:22 am

hughfarey wrote:"Fresh water is less buoyant than salt water too". No. Fresh water is more buoyant than salt water. It is less dense than salt water and floats on top of it. Because it is less dense, objects floating in it are less buoyant in fresh water than salt water, but fresh water itself is more buoyant than salt water.

:swhat:

I'm pretty sure that if you mixed fresh water and salt water, they would mix together, and you'd have water. Mixing fresh water and salt water doesn't result in a separation of fresh on top, and salt on bottom.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby Audie » Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:21 am

RickD wrote:
hughfarey wrote:"Fresh water is less buoyant than salt water too". No. Fresh water is more buoyant than salt water. It is less dense than salt water and floats on top of it. Because it is less dense, objects floating in it are less buoyant in fresh water than salt water, but fresh water itself is more buoyant than salt water.

:swhat:

I'm pretty sure that if you mixed fresh water and salt water, they would mix together, and you'd have water. Mixing fresh water and salt water doesn't result in a separation of fresh on top, and salt on bottom.


Mixing creates a mixture! Tautology alert!

Fresh water floating on top of sea water is a common phenomenon.

Perhaps you have info on the composition, "mixture" if you will, of
"flood" water? :D

Regardless, low density fresh water glacial ice floating in high density salt water would give the opposite effect to what ab may have intended, greater buoyancy.

A side note, that. Far more interesting is the "circumstances" under which all glaciers would suddenly become stuck down, and, even more important is the strange new force of adhesion that would resist millions of tons pressure. This is no mere ice cube stuck to a cup kind of glue. This will be an amazing advance for physics, so we need to hear about it.

Remarkable too would be way that polar ice could as suggested, be lifted up, float about, and then be set back down-neither melting nor breaking up in a year of going about at sea-and then be set back down precisely where it originated.

Has to be done with great care; there are mountain ranges, valleys between,
no straight lines anywhere,thousands and thousands of square miles of ice, all
set back down just so.

No doubt a "far more believable" explanation will be forthcoming.

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby hughfarey » Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:26 am

RickD wrote:I'm pretty sure that if you mixed fresh water and salt water, they would mix together, and you'd have water. Mixing fresh water and salt water doesn't result in a separation of fresh on top, and salt on bottom.
Mixing? Don't mix it, just lay it. Try this; it's easy, it's fun and it works every time
1) Dissolve as much salt as you can into half a jug of water.
2) Place a fresh egg into the water - it floats. (Eggs don't float in pure water)
3) Very slowly, perhaps with the jug at a slant, pour fresh water into the jug to fill it up.
4) Wow! The egg now 'floats' halfway up the jug, with the salt water below and the fresh water above. Yay! Magic!
5) Depending on the egg, it will eventually end up at the top, or the bottom. Time it to see how well salt and fresh water mix.

For added fun, colour the two water samples with a drop or two of different food colouring.

What has this to do with a global flood? I've no idea, and I bet a pound to a penny neither does abelcainsbrother!

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby Audie » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:32 am

hughfarey wrote:
RickD wrote:I'm pretty sure that if you mixed fresh water and salt water, they would mix together, and you'd have water. Mixing fresh water and salt water doesn't result in a separation of fresh on top, and salt on bottom.
Mixing? Don't mix it, just lay it. Try this; it's easy, it's fun and it works every time
1) Dissolve as much salt as you can into half a jug of water.
2) Place a fresh egg into the water - it floats. (Eggs don't float in pure water)
3) Very slowly, perhaps with the jug at a slant, pour fresh water into the jug to fill it up.
4) Wow! The egg now 'floats' halfway up the jug, with the salt water below and the fresh water above. Yay! Magic!
5) Depending on the egg, it will eventually end up at the top, or the bottom. Time it to see how well salt and fresh water mix.

For added fun, colour the two water samples with a drop or two of different food colouring.

What has this to do with a global flood? I've no idea, and I bet a pound to a penny neither does abelcainsbrother!


I spent quite a while one time, adding salt to water in an aquarium so that
three cans of soda would show their relative sugar content by their buoyancy.

got the pepsi one floating, the coca cola at neutral buoyancy, and the mt dew
at the bottom.

In the morning, I found out that I should have used room temperature water when I started.

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4116
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby abelcainsbrother » Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:15 pm

[float=][/float]
Audie wrote:
RickD wrote:
hughfarey wrote:"Fresh water is less buoyant than salt water too". No. Fresh water is more buoyant than salt water. It is less dense than salt water and floats on top of it. Because it is less dense, objects floating in it are less buoyant in fresh water than salt water, but fresh water itself is more buoyant than salt water.

:swhat:

I'm pretty sure that if you mixed fresh water and salt water, they would mix together, and you'd have water. Mixing fresh water and salt water doesn't result in a separation of fresh on top, and salt on bottom.


Mixing creates a mixture! Tautology alert!

Fresh water floating on top of sea water is a common phenomenon.

Perhaps you have info on the composition, "mixture" if you will, of
"flood" water? :D

Regardless, low density fresh water glacial ice floating in high density salt water would give the opposite effect to what ab may have intended, greater buoyancy.

A side note, that. Far more interesting is the "circumstances" under which all glaciers would suddenly become stuck down, and, even more important is the strange new force of adhesion that would resist millions of tons pressure. This is no mere ice cube stuck to a cup kind of glue. This will be an amazing advance for physics, so we need to hear about it.

Remarkable too would be way that polar ice could as suggested, be lifted up, float about, and then be set back down-neither melting nor breaking up in a year of going about at sea-and then be set back down precisely where it originated.

Has to be done with great care; there are mountain ranges, valleys between,
no straight lines anywhere,thousands and thousands of square miles of ice, all
set back down just so.

No doubt a "far more believable" explanation will be forthcoming.



Well I did not just make it up about glacier ice being picked up and sat back down,it is based on a core sampling that shows the ice at a certain depth is different than the ice on top which could suggest it was lifted up and sat back down,because,if it was lifted up and floated? It would melt part of the glacier away and then when sat back down would be different. I didn't just make it up. Now how could the ice at the bottom up to a certain point be different than the ice above it?
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby Audie » Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:46 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:[float=][/float]
Audie wrote:
RickD wrote:
hughfarey wrote:"Fresh water is less buoyant than salt water too". No. Fresh water is more buoyant than salt water. It is less dense than salt water and floats on top of it. Because it is less dense, objects floating in it are less buoyant in fresh water than salt water, but fresh water itself is more buoyant than salt water.

:swhat:

I'm pretty sure that if you mixed fresh water and salt water, they would mix together, and you'd have water. Mixing fresh water and salt water doesn't result in a separation of fresh on top, and salt on bottom.


Mixing creates a mixture! Tautology alert!

Fresh water floating on top of sea water is a common phenomenon.

Perhaps you have info on the composition, "mixture" if you will, of
"flood" water? :D

Regardless, low density fresh water glacial ice floating in high density salt water would give the opposite effect to what ab may have intended, greater buoyancy.

A side note, that. Far more interesting is the "circumstances" under which all glaciers would suddenly become stuck down, and, even more important is the strange new force of adhesion that would resist millions of tons pressure. This is no mere ice cube stuck to a cup kind of glue. This will be an amazing advance for physics, so we need to hear about it.

Remarkable too would be way that polar ice could as suggested, be lifted up, float about, and then be set back down-neither melting nor breaking up in a year of going about at sea-and then be set back down precisely where it originated.

Has to be done with great care; there are mountain ranges, valleys between,
no straight lines anywhere,thousands and thousands of square miles of ice, all
set back down just so.

No doubt a "far more believable" explanation will be forthcoming.



Well I did not just make it up about glacier ice being picked up and sat back down,it is based on a core sampling that shows the ice at a certain depth is different than the ice on top which could suggest it was lifted up and sat back down,because,if it was lifted up and floated? It would melt part of the glacier away and then when sat back down would be different. I didn't just make it up. Now how could the ice at the bottom up to a certain point be different than the ice above it?


Ok, I am kind of slow, I did not understand that you dont even realize that you
are just making things up.

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4116
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby abelcainsbrother » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:14 am

Audie wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:[float=][/float]
Audie wrote:
RickD wrote:
hughfarey wrote:"Fresh water is less buoyant than salt water too". No. Fresh water is more buoyant than salt water. It is less dense than salt water and floats on top of it. Because it is less dense, objects floating in it are less buoyant in fresh water than salt water, but fresh water itself is more buoyant than salt water.

:swhat:

I'm pretty sure that if you mixed fresh water and salt water, they would mix together, and you'd have water. Mixing fresh water and salt water doesn't result in a separation of fresh on top, and salt on bottom.


Mixing creates a mixture! Tautology alert!

Fresh water floating on top of sea water is a common phenomenon.

Perhaps you have info on the composition, "mixture" if you will, of
"flood" water? :D

Regardless, low density fresh water glacial ice floating in high density salt water would give the opposite effect to what ab may have intended, greater buoyancy.

A side note, that. Far more interesting is the "circumstances" under which all glaciers would suddenly become stuck down, and, even more important is the strange new force of adhesion that would resist millions of tons pressure. This is no mere ice cube stuck to a cup kind of glue. This will be an amazing advance for physics, so we need to hear about it.

Remarkable too would be way that polar ice could as suggested, be lifted up, float about, and then be set back down-neither melting nor breaking up in a year of going about at sea-and then be set back down precisely where it originated.

Has to be done with great care; there are mountain ranges, valleys between,
no straight lines anywhere,thousands and thousands of square miles of ice, all
set back down just so.

No doubt a "far more believable" explanation will be forthcoming.



Well I did not just make it up about glacier ice being picked up and sat back down,it is based on a core sampling that shows the ice at a certain depth is different than the ice on top which could suggest it was lifted up and sat back down,because,if it was lifted up and floated? It would melt part of the glacier away and then when sat back down would be different. I didn't just make it up. Now how could the ice at the bottom up to a certain point be different than the ice above it?


Ok, I am kind of slow, I did not understand that you dont even realize that you
are just making things up.


How come you don't believe me and think I'm just making things up? I mean I usually give evidence to back me up.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby Audie » Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:35 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Audie wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:[float=][/float]
Audie wrote:
RickD wrote: :swhat:

I'm pretty sure that if you mixed fresh water and salt water, they would mix together, and you'd have water. Mixing fresh water and salt water doesn't result in a separation of fresh on top, and salt on bottom.


Mixing creates a mixture! Tautology alert!

Fresh water floating on top of sea water is a common phenomenon.

Perhaps you have info on the composition, "mixture" if you will, of
"flood" water? :D

Regardless, low density fresh water glacial ice floating in high density salt water would give the opposite effect to what ab may have intended, greater buoyancy.

A side note, that. Far more interesting is the "circumstances" under which all glaciers would suddenly become stuck down, and, even more important is the strange new force of adhesion that would resist millions of tons pressure. This is no mere ice cube stuck to a cup kind of glue. This will be an amazing advance for physics, so we need to hear about it.

Remarkable too would be way that polar ice could as suggested, be lifted up, float about, and then be set back down-neither melting nor breaking up in a year of going about at sea-and then be set back down precisely where it originated.

Has to be done with great care; there are mountain ranges, valleys between,
no straight lines anywhere,thousands and thousands of square miles of ice, all
set back down just so.

No doubt a "far more believable" explanation will be forthcoming.



Well I did not just make it up about glacier ice being picked up and sat back down,it is based on a core sampling that shows the ice at a certain depth is different than the ice on top which could suggest it was lifted up and sat back down,because,if it was lifted up and floated? It would melt part of the glacier away and then when sat back down would be different. I didn't just make it up. Now how could the ice at the bottom up to a certain point be different than the ice above it?


Ok, I am kind of slow, I did not understand that you dont even realize that you
are just making things up.


How come you don't believe me and think I'm just making things up? I mean I usually give evidence to back me up.


I believe you are sincere in your confusion. I think you really believe the things you say, and that the supposed basis for your fantasies.

Now your fantasy is that something like the top half of the ice broke free, floated about and then returned. Seriously? Like, ice is "stuck down" and cant float; now entire ice sheets, all of them, all the glaciers are split like layer cakes, the top floating about, the bottom staying stuck.

That is wildly unreasonable even by your standards. But I guess you cant even tell, you lack the capacity to recognize the absurdity of it. Tell us you take it back, that you understand it is a dumb idea?

I understand that you think you give evidence, and that the evidence satisfies you because
you "know" that you are right about your gap and your flood; so that way all evidence can only be, and is, evidence that you, yes, are right. Confirmation bias on steroids.

The concept of "good and sufficient" evidence is utterly lost on you. Billions of years old zircon is entered into evidence for Noahs ark. Three ravens flying over
at dawn would be evidence enough for you that evolution is phony and that there was a flood.

Well, nobody is going to be able to teach you common sense.

User avatar
B. W.
Board Moderator
Posts: 7826
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby B. W. » Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:02 am

Audie wrote:
hughfarey wrote:
RickD wrote:I'm pretty sure that if you mixed fresh water and salt water, they would mix together, and you'd have water. Mixing fresh water and salt water doesn't result in a separation of fresh on top, and salt on bottom.
Mixing? Don't mix it, just lay it. Try this; it's easy, it's fun and it works every time
1) Dissolve as much salt as you can into half a jug of water.
2) Place a fresh egg into the water - it floats. (Eggs don't float in pure water)
3) Very slowly, perhaps with the jug at a slant, pour fresh water into the jug to fill it up.
4) Wow! The egg now 'floats' halfway up the jug, with the salt water below and the fresh water above. Yay! Magic!
5) Depending on the egg, it will eventually end up at the top, or the bottom. Time it to see how well salt and fresh water mix.

For added fun, colour the two water samples with a drop or two of different food colouring.

What has this to do with a global flood? I've no idea, and I bet a pound to a penny neither does abelcainsbrother!


I spent quite a while one time, adding salt to water in an aquarium so that
three cans of soda would show their relative sugar content by their buoyancy.

got the pepsi one floating, the coca cola at neutral buoyancy, and the mt dew
at the bottom.

In the morning, I found out that I should have used room temperature water when I started.


Maybe you need a little more vermouth, shaken, not stirred...

:ebiggrin:
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby Audie » Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:23 am

B. W. wrote:
Audie wrote:
hughfarey wrote:
RickD wrote:I'm pretty sure that if you mixed fresh water and salt water, they would mix together, and you'd have water. Mixing fresh water and salt water doesn't result in a separation of fresh on top, and salt on bottom.
Mixing? Don't mix it, just lay it. Try this; it's easy, it's fun and it works every time
1) Dissolve as much salt as you can into half a jug of water.
2) Place a fresh egg into the water - it floats. (Eggs don't float in pure water)
3) Very slowly, perhaps with the jug at a slant, pour fresh water into the jug to fill it up.
4) Wow! The egg now 'floats' halfway up the jug, with the salt water below and the fresh water above. Yay! Magic!
5) Depending on the egg, it will eventually end up at the top, or the bottom. Time it to see how well salt and fresh water mix.

For added fun, colour the two water samples with a drop or two of different food colouring.

What has this to do with a global flood? I've no idea, and I bet a pound to a penny neither does abelcainsbrother!


I spent quite a while one time, adding salt to water in an aquarium so that
three cans of soda would show their relative sugar content by their buoyancy.

got the pepsi one floating, the coca cola at neutral buoyancy, and the mt dew
at the bottom.

In the morning, I found out that I should have used room temperature water when I started.


Maybe you need a little more vermouth, shaken, not stirred...

:ebiggrin:


Maybe. But I dont drink...

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4116
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

Postby abelcainsbrother » Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:44 pm

Audie wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
Audie wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:[float=][/float]
Audie wrote:
Mixing creates a mixture! Tautology alert!

Fresh water floating on top of sea water is a common phenomenon.

Perhaps you have info on the composition, "mixture" if you will, of
"flood" water? :D

Regardless, low density fresh water glacial ice floating in high density salt water would give the opposite effect to what ab may have intended, greater buoyancy.

A side note, that. Far more interesting is the "circumstances" under which all glaciers would suddenly become stuck down, and, even more important is the strange new force of adhesion that would resist millions of tons pressure. This is no mere ice cube stuck to a cup kind of glue. This will be an amazing advance for physics, so we need to hear about it.

Remarkable too would be way that polar ice could as suggested, be lifted up, float about, and then be set back down-neither melting nor breaking up in a year of going about at sea-and then be set back down precisely where it originated.

Has to be done with great care; there are mountain ranges, valleys between,
no straight lines anywhere,thousands and thousands of square miles of ice, all
set back down just so.

No doubt a "far more believable" explanation will be forthcoming.



Well I did not just make it up about glacier ice being picked up and sat back down,it is based on a core sampling that shows the ice at a certain depth is different than the ice on top which could suggest it was lifted up and sat back down,because,if it was lifted up and floated? It would melt part of the glacier away and then when sat back down would be different. I didn't just make it up. Now how could the ice at the bottom up to a certain point be different than the ice above it?


Ok, I am kind of slow, I did not understand that you dont even realize that you
are just making things up.


How come you don't believe me and think I'm just making things up? I mean I usually give evidence to back me up.


I believe you are sincere in your confusion. I think you really believe the things you say, and that the supposed basis for your fantasies.

Now your fantasy is that something like the top half of the ice broke free, floated about and then returned. Seriously? Like, ice is "stuck down" and cant float; now entire ice sheets, all of them, all the glaciers are split like layer cakes, the top floating about, the bottom staying stuck.

That is wildly unreasonable even by your standards. But I guess you cant even tell, you lack the capacity to recognize the absurdity of it. Tell us you take it back, that you understand it is a dumb idea?

I understand that you think you give evidence, and that the evidence satisfies you because
you "know" that you are right about your gap and your flood; so that way all evidence can only be, and is, evidence that you, yes, are right. Confirmation bias on steroids.

The concept of "good and sufficient" evidence is utterly lost on you. Billions of years old zircon is entered into evidence for Noahs ark. Three ravens flying over
at dawn would be evidence enough for you that evolution is phony and that there was a flood.

Well, nobody is going to be able to teach you common sense.



You should realize how important evidence is in determining what is true or not. It is not showing good common sense to ignore evidence,while having none to present yourself,just unbelief and doubt about most anything when it comes to God and his word,oh but evolution is true even when it has never been confirmed. If you can believe life evolves based on the evidence? You could belief anything in the bible,but you give one a pass and raise your bar high when it comes to evidence for God"s word. You have never seen life evolve,yet believe it does,yet cannot believe the earth was flooded that you didn't see?The earth is flooded right now with over 70% of its surface covered with water,the evidence is around you,just look and see it.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests