Ararat Anomaly

Here spendi - this one's for you:

And you've verified the "Ghyben -Herzberg principle" to be true in ALL situations? Please show evidence that the G-H principle is correct. Then show evidence that your assertion is true in the case of Noah's Ark.

I try to avoid fancy sounding incoherence baddog. I haven't a clue what the sentence means actually.

The tale always struck me as a witty shaggy dog story which goes over the head of the po-faced like that one where Ulysses has himself tied to the mast and stops up his crew's ears to get past the Sirens in one piece.

BD, Im sure you looked up the Ghyben Herzberg principle. Put it in your own words for both D"arcy and Non D'Arcy conditions. You may use an additional blue book.

You could always discuss it in the Hubbert dynamic association cases. Perhaps that would be more comfortable.

Almost exactly as I suspected. Spendi's assessments have been spot-on. :wink:

Jeesis H christ.

amen

Did It Rain before the Flood?

Genesis 2:5-6 suggests that it did not rain before the flood:

Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth; and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.1

But notice, these verses state only that shortly after the earth was created, it had not rained. How long did this condition last? Some believe that this mist began the evaporation-rain cycle. If so, the period of no rain was brief, and it rained before the flood. Let's look for other clues.

Rainbows. God promised never again to flood the entire earth (Genesis 9:12-17), a promise marked by a "bow in the cloud"?-a rainbow. Rainbows form when raindrops refract sunlight. This suggests that rainbows began after the flood, which would mean there was no preflood rain.

Others disagree, saying rainbows may have been visible before the flood, but afterward God simply associated His promise with rainbows. This would be similar to the symbolism of a wedding ring. Rings existed before a wedding, but afterward the ring recalls a solemn vow. However, if rainbows suddenly began after the flood, the rainbow's symbolic effect would have been more unforgettable and reassuring to the frightened survivors of the flood.

Some argue that rainbows would have formed before the flood every time water splashed and sunlight passed through the droplets. This argument overlooks that God's promise concerned rainbows "in the cloud," not a relatively few drops of water several feet above the ground.

A Terrarium. The Hebrew word translated "mist," in Genesis 2:6 is used in only one other place in the Bible?-Job 36:27. There it clearly means water vapor. So, did the preflood earth act as a humid terrarium in which water vapor evaporated, condensed without rainfall, and watered the earth? Could an earth-size terrarium produce enough water to supply major rivers, such as described in Genesis 2:10-14? Two preflood rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates, were evidently the basis for naming the mighty postflood rivers that today bear the same names. [See Endnote 4 on page 312.]

The preflood earth was quite different from today's earth. If the hydroplate theory is reasonably correct, earth's preflood topography was smoother, so rivers flowed more slowly and required less water to keep them filled. No volcanoes, major mountains, glaciers, or polar ice existed before the flood. Approximately half the earth's water was under the earth's crust, so the earth's surface had about half the water it has today. With 360-day years, days were slightly longer, so temperatures were slightly higher during the day and colder at night. [See pages 102-132 and Endnotes 16-23 on page 155.] The preflood earth had greater land area, because the flood produced today's ocean basins. [See pages 138-159.] Preflood forests were vast and lush, enough to form today's coal, oil, and methane deposits. This left little room for deserts. Could these preflood conditions have prevented rain, yet adequately watered a thirsty earth?

Condensation Nuclei. Water droplets almost always begin with water vapor condensing on a solid surface. A common example is early-morning dew that collects on grass. Raindrops, snowflakes, and fog particles begin growing on microscopic particles carried in the air. These particles, called condensation nuclei, are typically 0.001-0.0001 millimeters in diameter?-less than one hundredth the diameter of a human hair. Each cubic inch of air we breathe contains at least 1,000 such particles. Water vapor molecules rarely collide and stick together; instead, a water droplet forms when trillions of water molecules collect on a microscopic particle.

Wind. Most wind is produced by atmospheric temperature differences; wind then mixes air that has different temperatures and moisture contents. The various "mixtures" give us weather: rain, snow, hail, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, fair weather, etc. Without today's major mountains, ice sheets, volcanoes, and vast oceans,2 the preflood earth had more uniform temperatures. Also, abundant vegetation moderated temperatures by evaporative cooling during the day and condensation and heating at night. More uniform temperatures meant less wind3 and weather extremes.

If a water molecule were the size of a ping-pong ball, a condensation nucleus would be a house-size "rock" and a raindrop would be 100 miles in diameter. When a gaseous water molecule strikes that "rock," much of the molecule's energy is transferred to the "rock" as heat. If a somewhat "absorbent rock" is cold enough and the humidity is high enough, the molecule will stick; condensation will begin, and a raindrop will start to grow. The "rock," slightly warmer because of the added energy from colliding water molecules, will warm the surrounding air, causing slight updrafts. Moist breezes plus updrafts would bring enough moisture to "the rock" for it to grow into a water droplet.

That "rock" and its attached water cannot "float" in calm air for long, just as a grain of sand cannot float in still water. Only wind can suspend condensation nuclei, just as only a swift stream can suspend a sand particle. With less preflood wind, condensation nuclei would receive less lift and stay closer to the ground. With more uniform temperatures globally, less air would rise over warmer areas?-again, keeping nuclei and moisture closer to the ground. High clouds may not have existed.

Once water began collecting on nuclei near the ground, the heat of condensation warmed adjacent air, causing it to rise. A microscopic droplet has a large cross-sectional area relative to its volume, so rising, moist air carried the tiny droplet upward. As it rapidly grew, its weight increased faster than its cross-sectional area, so it quickly settled to the earth and often collected other droplets in its path. We could describe this as fog rising from the earth and then settling back to water the ground before rain could form. (Sounds like Genesis 2:5-6, doesn't it?)

It would be similar to morning fog rising on a still lake, but with two differences. First, without polar ice and snow-capped mountains before the flood, less solar radiation reflected back into space, so more of the Sun's rays heated the earth during the day. With more forests, few (if any) clouds, and slightly longer days, the earth absorbed even more solar energy. Consequently, more water evaporated each day. At night, fewer clouds and longer nights allowed more heat to escape into space, causing more water to condense. (Today, clouds reflect back into space 20-25% of the incoming radiation and hold in much of the earth's outgoing radiation.) Therefore, the preflood earth was watered more abundantly and uniformly by daily condensation than by rain today. Furthermore, watering occurred at daily intervals. Unlike today, there were no long dry spells or wet spells, droughts or local floods.

Heavy condensation before each sunrise kept moisture closer to the ground and restricted high-cloud formation. Today, morning fog evaporates soon after sunrise, before the moisture can settle to the ground. With fewer, if any, high clouds before the flood, temperatures dropped more rapidly at night. This, coupled with more moisture in the daytime air, allowed water droplets to grow larger, settle to the ground faster, and be absorbed by the soil before morning evaporation could begin.

The second difference caused preflood fog droplets to grow even faster and larger. Without today's main sources of condensation nuclei (volcanic debris, sulfur compounds from volcanoes, man-made pollutants, lightning-produced fires, sea salt from ocean spray, or dust kicked up by high winds) there were fewer condensation nuclei. Condensing more moisture on fewer nuclei meant fog droplets grew larger and settled faster.

First Rain. If it did not rain before the flood, how did the first rain form at the very beginning of the flood? As explained on pages 102-132, the drops of water falling at the beginning of the flood were not formed by condensing water. Instead, they formed by fragmenting the upward-jetting subterranean water into a spray.

Any credible explanation of the flood should explain why rain probably did not fall before the flood, how the fertile earth was watered, what supplied the rivers, how violent rain4 fell so rapidly at the beginning of the flood, and why the rain ended after 40 days, even though the flood waters rose until the 150th day when all the preflood mountains were covered. Also, if the flood's 40 days of rain formed by condensation, why didn't that rain stop after a few days, because falling rain would have removed the condensation nuclei? The hydroplate theory answers these questions.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ217.html#wp1615634

Without concerning oneself with idiotic contentions such as are embodied in the drivel from "Creation Science" (Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha) above, perhaps BD can tell me where the water went after it receded.

Genesis Chapter 8, Verses 1 through 5, in the King James Version:

And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged;

The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

So, when the waters were "assuaged," and "returned from off the earth continually," and "were abated," and "decreaed continually," where did the water go?

I've stayed out of this thread because of its futility. But to answer your question about where the water went, I refer you to the recent discovery of a giant drain hole in the Mariana Trench.

Or is it just filling the Mariana Trench?

That's a highly tendentious statement, Neo. To refer to a "drain" in the Mariana Trench suggests that you possess information which no one else posses. If there were such a drain, apart from implying that this subduction junction has been, more or less, static for 5000 years, in defiance of all the data which geologists have on it, then perhaps you could explain how it would drain away enough water to cover all of the mountains of the earth to a depth of 15 cubits in the space of a few weeks, but has failed to drain away the waters which fill the oceans in 5000 years.

This article from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, which was written in July, 2004, and updated in October, 2007, makes no mention of your drain, although it describes the Mariana Trench. Woods Hole is just about the most prestigious oceanographic institution in the world. Are you willing to claim that you know something about the Mariana Trench that they don't?

Got a source for your dog and pony show?

The Mariana Trench-dot-com website makes no mention of a "drain." Got that source for us yet, Neo?

If someone, perhaps a prestigious Oceanographic Institute, would clean that drain, I bet they find they find an Ark stuck in it.

That's gonna require a shitpot of Draino . . .

You've provided no compelling evidence (other than emotion-based drivel) to discount information from the source; "Creation Science". Likewise - it is good for me.

The Origin of Oceanic Trenches

SUMMARY: Deep folds, thousands of miles long and several miles deep, lie on the western Pacific Ocean floor, directly opposite the center of the Atlantic Ocean. The plate tectonic theory claims that plates drifting on the earth's surface dive into earth and drag down the folds. Fifteen reasons will be given why this idea is wrong.

As the flood increasingly altered earth's balanced, spherical shape, gravity increasingly tried to squeeze the earth back toward a more spherical shape. Once a "tipping point" was reached, that portion of the subterranean chamber floor with the most overlying rock removed rose at least 8 miles to become the Atlantic floor. This caused the Pacific floor to subside and buckle inward, producing folds, called oceanic trenches. Measurements and discoveries near trenches confirm this subsidence and the absence of diving plates. Shifts of material throughout the inner earth produced "oceans" of magma that became earth's outer core. Some magma escaped to the earth's surface, especially onto the subsiding Pacific floor. Mass imbalances in the earth remain, so earthquakes now occur and continents steadily shift?-not drift?-toward the trench region of the western Pacific.

Imagine standing at the edge of something that reminds you of the Grand Canyon, but this "canyon" is several times deeper. Its walls are almost as steep as the Grand Canyon's, but the view across the 60-mile-wide depression is never obstructed by intermediate land forms. This "canyon" is thousands of miles longer than the Grand Canyon and does not have sharp bends. Such depressions, called oceanic trenches, would be the leading natural wonders of the world if water did not hide them. (Average ocean depth is 2.5 miles; the deepest trench is 6.86 miles below sea level.) Sixteen trenches are concentrated on the western Pacific floor. What concentrated so many trenches, and why in the Western Pacific?

Surprisingly, trenches contain shallow-water fossils.2
Materials [including fossils] which are usually supposed to be deposited only in shallow water have actually been found on the floor of some of the deep trenches.3

Why are such unlikely fossils in a remote part of the ocean?-a thousand times deeper than one would expect?
Today, most of the earth's crust is vertically balanced, like blocks of ice floating in a pan of water. Large, dense blocks sink in, while lighter blocks "float" higher up. This is called isostatic equilibrium. However, oceanic trenches are earth's most glaring departure from this equilibrium. That may be an important clue about how trenches formed.

As various authorities have written:
... trenches are characterized by large negative gravity anomalies. That is, there appears to be a mass deficiency beneath the trenches, and thus something must be holding the trenches down or else they would rise in order to restore isostatic equilibrium. 4

The most striking phenomenon associated with the trenches is a deficiency in gravity ... Measurements of gravity near trenches show pronounced departures from the expected values. These gravity anomalies are among the largest found on earth. It is clear that isostatic equilibrium does not exist near the trenches. The trench-producing forces must be acting ... to pull the crust under the trenches downward!5
In other words, something has pulled, not pushed, trenches down. The downward pull of gravity in and above trenches is less than expected, even after adjusting for the trench's shape, so less mass exists under trenches than one would expect. It is as if something deep inside the earth "sucked" downward the material directly below trenches. This would reduce the mass below trenches. (If you want to show a slight weight loss, weigh yourself while on a ship sailing over a trench.)
A useful illustration is to think of a slight vacuum, or reduced mass, under trenches. While the term density deficiency is more descriptive and accurate, most people understand the consequence of a partial vacuum which "nature abhors." That is, nature always tries to move material to fill a vacuum. If one waited long enough, material inside the earth must flow in under trenches to fill this "partial vacuum." Today, crustal plates move an inch or so each year toward trenches, so this "partial vacuum" is being filled in modern times. Later, we will see where the missing mass under trenches went and what created the "partial vacuum." Clearly, this "filling in" has not been going on for long.

A technique called seismic tomography has detected slight density increases under continents. The technique uses earthquake waves to see inside the earth, just as a CAT scan uses x-rays from many angles to see inside your body. Each earthquake radiates waves through the earth. Seismometers located throughout the world receive these waves. Knowing the precise time of arrival and the time of an earthquake, each wave's velocity along a specific path can be calculated. After many earthquakes and knowing the velocities along tens of thousands of different paths, a computer can estimate the wave speed at every point inside the earth. Higher than normal speed implies either colder or denser rock at that point. Earthquake waves travel faster under continents. Some increases in speed are too great to be caused entirely by colder temperatures.6

Almost 90% of all earthquake energy is released under trenches. Earthquakes often occur near sloping planes, called Benioff zones, that intersect a trench. These earthquake zones enter the mantle at 35°-60° angles below the horizontal and extend to depths of about 420 miles.
A fault is a fractured surface within the earth along which rock masses have slipped. During an earthquake, opposite sides of a fault "unlock" and rapid sliding begins. If the side of a fault nearest a distant seismometer moves toward the seismometer, a compression wave will be detected first. If that side moves away from the seismometer, a tension wave will be detected first. By examining the first wave to reach many seismometers, one can deduce the orientation of the fault plane and whether the earthquake was triggered by compression or tension. Earthquakes near trenches are almost always due to horizontal tension failures at right angles to the trench axis.8 Measurements also show that microearthquakes on the ocean floor tend to occur at low tide.9
A prominent feature on all ocean floors is the Mid-Oceanic Ridge. One characteristic of the ridge figures prominently in the two competing theories for how trenches formed. As explained in the preceding chapter, the ridge is cracked in a strange pattern. Some cracks are nearly perpendicular to the ridge axis, while other cracks are parallel to it. Their shapes and orientation are best explained by the stretching of the ridge.10 What would stretch the ridge in two perpendicular directions? (These cracks are easily seen along the Mid-Oceanic Ridge in Figure 42 on page 103.)

More than 40,000 submarine volcanoes, called seamounts, litter the Pacific floor. Some rise higher above the seafloor than Mount Everest rises above sea level. Strangely, the Atlantic has few seamounts. If one plate dives (subducts) beneath another, why aren't seamounts and soft sediments scraped off the top of the descending plate?
About 2,000 flat-topped seamounts, called tablemounts, are 3,000-6,000 feet below sea level. Evidently, as these volcanoes tried to grow above sea level, wave action planed off their tops. Either sea level was once much lower, or ocean floors were higher, or both. Each possibility raises new and difficult questions.

From deep in the mantle, enormous amounts of melted basalt, called flood basalts, explosively11 spilled onto the earth's surface?-especially in the Pacific. A typical "spill" could cover the eastern United States to the height of the Appalachian Mountains?-from Atlanta to New York City and from the Appalachian Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean. More than a dozen of these convulsions have occurred at different places on earth, dwarfing in volume the total magma used to form all volcanic cones.
Rocks are made up of a variety of minerals, some of which contain molecules of water. These minerals would not feel wet to the touch, because each water molecule is locked separately in a mineral's crystalline structure, and the water constitutes only about one-thousandth of the rock's volume. Nevertheless, the inner earth is so large that it probably contains several oceans' worth of water. This may explain why a large amount of water (equivalent to the water in the Arctic Ocean) appears to be concentrated at depths of 500-750 miles, especially under eastern Asia and a small portion of western North America.12

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Trenches2.html#wp114498

I wasn't offering an "emotional" argument, i was asking a question. You are making extraordinary claims, and therefore have the burden of providing proof. You have provided none.

No emotion from:

Nice try.


As to your contention of me providing no proof and extraordinary claims, you are also incorrect. I am providing pertinent evidence and sources; you just don't agree. That's fine w/me - you don't have to agree.

You're not providing pertinent evidence of any description. You're providing bullshit claims from "Creation Science" (Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahaha), most of which doesn't even make logical sense, let alone have a reliable grounding in science.

For example, in the horseshit about the "ark," they allege that 800 trees were used (and pretty damned small trees, at that, even though they make an unsubstantiated claim that "conditions were more favorable then"--more favorable than what, more favorable for what?) to construct a ship more than twice as large as Constitution, which, as the evidence i provided shows, required 2000 trees to build. In your latest foray, the describe sub-oceanic trenchs as subduction zones, and then object to the presence of shallow water fossils in those regions--even though a subduction area is one in which surface materials are gradually driven down and under an adjoining plate. Over sufficient time, it is completely reasonable to expect to find fossils of every description.

It's not a matter of what i am prepared to agree with--it is a matter of you having failed to provide any reliable evidence, because your sources don't provide any reliable evidence.

"Creation Science" . . . Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

By the way, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute can reasonably be described as a reliable source on sub-oceanic geology. "Creation Science" (Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha) web sites have no such credentials.

OUCH! My tongue is so far into my cheek, it hurts.