Here are some awesome NEW disclosures about the huge water content of the mantle of the Earth from the University of Texas http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/feats/2007/bodnar.html, an absolutely fascinating read, and I look forward to your comments, particlurly from the Lyellian Darwinites.

"Three times the water below as in the oceans," my oh my.

so now the mantle will be sucked dry?

Yes, but what would make them empty, as spaces that could be filled later with deluge waters? If they are filled now, they must have been filled in the past due to the presence of the Oceans.

Only if you suck hard enough.

I don't get your correlation.

I don't get your correlation.

there is no point to get it. :cool:

Water comes with magma, big time, and no doubt came with magma in the past, perhaps in even larger percentages, but plenty of water for the Deluge, afterall, the crustal thickness of the Earth is comparable to the skin on an apple, or like 1 foot of length compared to the length of a football field, precarious indeed, sitting on top of all that water.

IAC, why don't you enlighten everyone as to why all that magma would suddenly out of nowhere come up out of the mideoceanic rift zones?

Don't worry, since I've already asked you this question, I'll just tell everyone. Here is IAC's incredible theory as to how this great amount of magma magically started pumping out of the rift zones:

"The exploded planet which was between Jupiter and Mars caused debris to strike the Earth, inducing the Deluge."

Somehow, debris hitting the earth miraculously affected sub-crustal processes in extraordinary ways. In any case, how did this planet explode, Ice?

"Don't know that."

So somehow, the explosion of a planet millions of miles away caused the earth's plate tectonic system to speed up to miraculous rates. :bugeye:

How 'bout them apples?

By th way, your thread title is incorrect. Just because someone doubts your personal, literal interpretation of Genesis doesn't mean they don't support a more rational view of Genesis (such as the creation "days" weren't actual, 24 hour days).

Oh NO! You've really got us all over a barrell this time IAC! Lets everyone just abandon all other interpretations and convert to religion X?

OR,

Then again, IAC could actually answer some of the questions from his previous, (very similarly themed - and therefore should probably be amalgamated) "Sedimentary Means Water Deposited" thread...

IAC, did you actually read the article?

From the article,

The speed at which sound travels through the mantle suggests that the rocks in the area of the mantle known as the transition zone contain on the order of 0.5 percent water (by weight). These seismic studies agree more or less with Smyth’s conjecture.


Note that there is a slight difference between 80% and 0.5%.

Note that there is a slight difference between 80% and 0.5%.

LOL. You gotta love it.

I wonder where the 80% came from anyway (other than IAC's fantasy land).

Oh NO! You've really got us all over a barrell this time IAC! Lets everyone just abandon all other interpretations and convert to religion X?

OR,

Then again, IAC could actually answer some of the questions from his previous, (very similarly themed - and therefore should probably be amalgamated) "Sedimentary Means Water Deposited" thread...

LOL. From the looks of the poll results so far at the Religion section, "Old or Young Earth," it doesn't seem like IAC has convinced many people of his hypothesis.

That's in the transiton zone, the article says that there is three times the water now in the oceans in the mantle, so about four times before the Deluge, obviously.

IAC, explain again how debris from an exploded planet caused the Deluge. And how did Noah somehow evade the resulting tsunamis or the massive debris that must have been needed to cause a deluge (so massive it's impossible, lol)?

The debris hit our planet, which induced tectonic activity.

The comets in our solar system are debris from the exploded planet, there is not indication that the so-called Oort Cloud exists.

IAC, What magical force did Noah invoke to stop all of the animals on the Ark from devouring one another?

Patience and cages, hibernations, just common sense.

The debris hit our planet, which induced tectonic activity.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Explain how debris hitting our planet caused the earth's tectonic activity to speed up tremendously and caused the earth to suddenly pump out billions of cubic miles of magma?

What he kept freshwater fish in cages!? I thought it was Moses that did things with water?

IAC, what magical force caused animals from all over the world (raptors, T-Rex's, brachisaurus's, etc.) to suddenly walk thousands of miles to Noah's ark, and how did they know where to go?

Also, what did the carnivores eat? You know, those young juvenile raptors, T-Rex's, tigers, etc. needed a lot of yummy herbivores to survive for 6 months on the ark and for a lifetime post-ark.

Many syngameons of fish have adapted to varying degrees of salinity, and there were many degrees of salinity in the Deluge water, so no problem.

Moses lived when the Ice Age ended, about 900 years after the Deluge, he led the Hebrews out of Egypt when it was drying up and the world ocean was rising to consume the coastal cities.

Who said they traveled thousands of miles?

LOL. Okay. Let's assume all the animals were within a radius of about 100 miles.

IAC, what magical force caused animals from all over the world (raptors, T-Rex's, brachisaurus's, etc.) to suddenly walk 100 miles to Noah's ark, and how did they know where to go?

Also, what did the carnivores eat? You know, those young juvenile raptors, T-Rex's, tigers, etc. needed a lot of yummy herbivores to survive for 6 months on the ark and for a lifetime post-ark.

Let me add a third. How long did it take for 1 million animal species to develop out of 20,000 "kinds"?

Who knows?

Provisions.

Who knows?

Provisions.

See, the problem with "provisions" is that suddenly fitting the 40,000 animals on the ark, plus the huge amounts of provisions needed for almost a year on the ark poses a major problem for your theory.

Why didn't you answer the first or third questions?

The animals fit into less the half of the Ark's volume.

Great diversity within the various syngameons was achieved within several generations, in isolated breeding groups in disparate new ecological niches.

Many syngameons of fish have adapted to varying degrees of salinity, and there were many degrees of salinity in the Deluge water, so no problem.

:roflmao: Spoken by somebody who has obviously never tried to keep fish! Adaptation of this magnitude would require many generations.

So, Noah was a carpenter, loin-tamer, aquaculturist, and biochemist (after all he would have needed anti-venom) was he?

Who says he got snake bit?

Why don't you start another thread, that's way off topic.

Not just snakes... spiders too! Well, how could he take that chance that he wouldn't be? He would have had to have been able to remedy the situation otherwise all of the animals would have died...

Please stay on topic.

Noahs in YOUR deluge hypothesis not mine.

The animals fit into less the half of the Ark's volume.

That's if you pile them one on top of the other in non-livable conditions. Either way, the amount of food needed to feed these 40,000 animals would have fit into possibly 2 or 3 arks.

Great diversity within the various syngameons was achieved within several generations, in isolated breeding groups in disparate new ecological niches.

Why don't we see many new species being formed today?

Please stay on topic.

Translation = "I have no answer."

I gotta go, my tea is ready, but I'm quite enjoying this absurdity... so I'll be back.

Translation = "I have no answer."

Nope, he doesn't. And we're just at the tip of the iceburg...

We don't see anymore "species," which are actually syngameon variants, developing today because the isolated breeding groups were just that, so some of the respective lineages within isolated breeding groups died out in the new ecological niches, and others had characteristics suited for the respective niches.

The ark's alleged size:

450 ft X 75 ft X 45 ft = 1,518,750 cubic feet in volume = 43,006,211 liters in volume

Now, there were supposedly 40,000 animals on board.
According to IAC, these 40,000 animals took up half of the arks volume, which leaves us with 21,503,106 liters of free space.

So Noah had to use the 21,503,106 liters of free space for FOOD and WATER.

The average dog needs an ounce of water per pound of bodyweight daily to be healthy. Assuming the Dog Syngameon weighed 80 pounds each, they would need 2.4 liters of water a day. We will also assume that the average water requirement of every animal was 2.4 liters. We know that the animals were supposedly on the ark for about 250 days (I'm guessing).

250 days X 40,000 animals X 2.4 liters per day = 24,000,000 liters of water per day needed for all the animals to survive on the ark.

UH OH!!! We have a slight problem here. We only have 21 Million liters of free space, yet we need 24,000,000 liters of water. Hmmmmmmmmmmm...

And we haven't even gotten to food yet!!!

Great book: "Noah's Ark: a Feasibility Study."

We don't see anymore "species," which are actually syngameon variants, developing today because the isolated breeding groups were just that, so some of the respective lineages within isolated breeding groups died out in the new ecological niches, and others had characteristics suited for the respective niches.

And hence the problem with your theory. When God created animals, he only created a finite number of "syngameons" or "kinds" of animals.

These syngameons had a whole 2,000 years to develop into various "syngameon variants." According to your theory, within only 5 or 6 generations, NO MORE SYNGAMEON VARIANTS COULD RESULT, SINCE YOU CLAIM THIS IS HOW FAST THE PROCESS IS.

Therefore, by the time of the flood, no more "hyper-mutts" would be in existence. Only the "sygameon variants" similar to what we see today. Noah would not, then, have been able to bring "Hyper Mutts" on board since only the "syngameon variants" existed by that time.

The was homogeneity among the respective syngameons pre Deluge.

Great book: "Noah's Ark: a Feasibility Study."

Great book? LOL. Yes, if it is in the fiction genre.
They should have named this book, "Noah's Ark: An Infeasibility Study"

"Many of the arguments depend upon mathematical calculations which are not displayed, either in footnotes or appendices. This leaves the mathematically oriented reader wondering if the mathematics was correct. He claims that calculations show ark animals produced between 6 and 12 tons of airborne moisture. None of the assumptions are displayed to allow the reader to evaluate such a claim. Calculations of the heat production by animals in the ark are claimed to show that there is no problem with this issue, but the lack of calculations force the reader to depend upon the author for the validity of that statement.

Woodmorappe's tables are confusing, and abridged and because of this it is difficult to check out the mathematical accuracy of his arguments. For instance, in Table 1 he divides the animals on the ark into 8 weight divisions for each class: reptiles, birds and mammals. Thus one would think that there are 24 categories (3 X 8). Table 2 lists the same data for 25 orders, then abridges the remaining 61 land vertebrate orders (which means 61 categories). One can not figure out why this table is published. By the time the reader gets to table 4, which calculates the amount of food required to feed the animals for 371 days, Woodmorappe, giving only a reference, uses a totally unexplained equation (and we discover that there are 32 categories of animals. But these 32 categories are not explained and why there are now more than 24 categories, is also unexplained). Table 5, which calculates drinking water requirements, adds to the confusion by citing only 27 categories of animals which drink water. Either three categories don't eat food or five don't drink water.

Woodmorappe states (p. 27) that the urine could be drained overboard by gravity. He does not tell how this is possible from the lowest floor level which was below the water line. At one point he suggests that the animals could be trained to urinate and defecate upon command while someone holds a bucket behind the animal. Assuming that this can be accomplished for the largest quarter of the animals and that they need to be serviced three times per day, each person must service 125 animals per hour, 2 animals a minute. What a fun job that must have been."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html

IAC, your "expert" author fails to provide how he came to the numbers he did, and he fails to explain many other things (kind of like you!!!).

Well then I guess you'll just have to put on your thinking cap.

You must admit what he touches on is quite compelling.

You must admit what he touches on is quite compelling.

No, not really.

My calcuations are a lot more accurate than his.

You shouldn't think so.

You shouldn't think

No, you shouldn't think... it's a waste of energy.

IAC, that author wasn't biased towards proving the Noah's Ark Fable, was he?

Are you against it?

Me and about 95% of all other sane people. IAC, in any case, how about explaining to us all how the author comes to those calculations.

Define sane.

Define sane.

sane - not IAC

In Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe states that only 2,000 animals need have been on the ark. TWO THOUSAND.

Why is it that you state that 40,000 animals need have been on the ark?

I was being generous.

How did Noah find a platypus?

By banging some plates on a puss?

So 2000 species turned into 10 million species in a matter of 500 years. That's just great, IAC. Sounds like "Punctuated equilibrium" to me. LOL.

Species is a meaningless term, thousands of syngameons naturally selected for the millions of so-called species, which are actually variations within respective syngameons.

Aside from the absurd notion that 2,000 animal types could turn into 10 million within 500 years, how do you explain the fact that no human fossils are ever found with dinosaurs? Why do you keep avoiding this important question?

What were the years of this deluge?

About 2500 BC. to 2499 BC, or something like that.

"The most interesting post-ark problem Woodmorappe discusses concerns the genetic diversity. Unfortunately, Woodmorappe appeals to a period of rapid mutation after the flood to restore genetic diversity. Very little justification for this is given. Having rejected the accepted rates of molecular clocks Woodmorappe is forced to talk about "mutator genes" which cause mutations, radioactivity and the mutagenic effects of a stressful environment (citing a creationist source). He refers to a "burst of mutations among Noah's immediate post-Flood descendants". This appeal to phenomenon with no apparent cause occurs far too frequently."

http://www.answersincreation.org/noah_ark_feasibility_study.htm

"A period of rapid genetic mutation." Wow, IAC, I never knew you supported the idea of "punctuated equilibrium."

The bold section of the excerpt above really sums up IAC's Theory:

B]This appeal to phenomenon with no apparent cause occurs far too frequently.[/B]

Syngameons baby syngameons.

"Syngameons baby syngameons."

I wonder if it's a lack of response like the one above which makes no one believe your hypothesis?

So no response to the fossil problem?

Any extreme reduction in a breeding population would be reflected in the genome. There are indications that humanity was reduced to some 10-15K people at one point, but this is not universal among all creatures, and certainly not all at the same time, and certainly not around the time frame some suggest for a great extinction event around 2,000 BC.

Every so often I am reminded of why I skim that BS: The comets in our solar system are debris from the exploded planet, there is not indication that the so-called Oort Cloud exists. God's hand is nowhere so evident as in guiding the debris of an exploded planet into comet-like orbits. Praise !

Still no argument against my large slow ice comet improvement, which also explains the distribution of the animals on the continents and both the origin and fate of the water in the deluge - thereby cutting the number of impossibilities by at least three, immediately.

If we can get the impossibilities cut down to just four or five, and especially get them out of the realms of physics and geology and into the more easily long-conned fields of evolutionary biology and waterzoo maintenance, we have a chance to put this one over, I think.

btw: I missed something - how did we figure out that the ark floated around for a year or more?

iceaura, just out of curiosity. Does the water comet theory explain the fossil record?

iceaura, just out of curiosity. Does the water comet theory explain the fossil record? Not yet, but one thing at a time, man. I'm just trying to get the impossibilities out of ridiculous physics and into ludicrous biology where the camo is better.

The water comet does explain the continental distros of the fossils, by how the continents were split apart as the earth swelled. So that's a start. And I think the enormous pounding rain can be imagined to have stirred up the dead beasties, and they would have settled large beastie first like coffee grounds in a stirred cup, so the layering with the dinos on the bottom is explained.

I think all the plants, pollen, seeds, algae, fungal spores, etc, can be ignored. That's traditional, and tradition comforts the mark. If anyone asks, we'll explain them by calling them syngameons.

So the major problem left might be all the people's skeletons. How's this: we know they lived in one area, all wicked together, so maybe that area hasn't been investigated yet - it's Antarctica, pushed to the South by the swelling earth and the site of the final collision with the remaining unmelted ice of the comet. They're all under the icecap of Antarctica.

Work for you?

Not yet, but one thing at a time, man. I'm just trying to get the impossibilities out of ridiculous physics and into ludicrous biology where the camo is better.

The water comet does explain the continental distros of the fossils, by how the continents were split apart as the earth swelled. So that's a start. And I think the enormous pounding rain can be imagined to have stirred up the dead beasties, and they would have settled large beastie first like coffee grounds in a stirred cup, so the layering with the dinos on the bottom is explained.

I think all the plants, pollen, seeds, algae, fungal spores, etc, can be ignored. That's traditional, and tradition comforts the mark. If anyone asks, we'll explain them by calling them syngameons.

So the major problem left might be all the people's skeletons. How's this: we know they lived in one area, all wicked together, so maybe that area hasn't been investigated yet - it's Antarctica, pushed to the South by the swelling earth and the site of the final collision with the remaining unmelted ice of the comet. They're all under the icecap of Antarctica.

Work for you?

LOL. Very nice. I love it.

Hey Laika, how do you like that information in the link which opens this thread, what do you have to say about all that water down there?

IAC the article you have brought to our attention states:"It [the water] doesn’t exist as a liquid ocean, but rather locked up as countless molecules of hydrogen and oxygen inside the crystals that make up rocks."

The Sun too contains molecules of hydrogen and oxygen, would you like to claim that as the source of water for the GF"M"!?

"Scientists have come to suspect that most of the Earth's water is actually deep below ground.....discovered that other minerals in the mantle are capable of storing water......Earth's mantle may hold up to five times the water as the oceans."

C'mon Benauld, get with the program.

Ok IAC, cite us some convincing evidence to demonstrate the change in the quantity of this stored water over time, since you use this concept in order to try and corroborate your idea...

P.S. You may want to look up the meaning of the word evidence prior to doing this.

They are estimating that there's five times the water of the oceans below the crust, so since so much magma has spilled out through the midoceanic ridges, composed of about 80% water by weight, the water content below the crust was probably about six times the amount of water in the oceans before the Deluge.

The compressed water below the crust is superheated to a temperature to be steam, but the pressure of confinement keeps it in a liquid but superheated state, so when it comes to the surface, the water expands forth as steam, magma released in water causes the released steam to become liquid water in the ocean water, the "fountains of the deep."

Once again IAC you are skillfully avoiding my question. What EVIDENCE not ASSUMPTION leads you to believe that there "was" 6 times more water, rather than 5, pre-flood?

The scientists are just scratching the surface about the conditions below the Earth's crust, but these days, they're estimating 5X below, and since volatiles (superheated water) tend to escape (ie Deluge), 6X is a reasonable estimate, as 5X is water they estimate today below.

Even without the Deluge, such escape would be expected over the alleged billions of years.

No. The deluge is the phenomenon you are attempting to explain it cannot simultaneously be the mechanism for it as well!

I never said it was!

Exactly. Good point Benauld.

Yes you did, re-read the dialogue above. Furthermore could you please divulge your source for magma comprising the fantastical figure of 80% water by weight!? From my reading around the average is actually around 2 – 10% by weight. By the way the wt% of water in any magma is dependent upon pressure anyway.

I can't find the citation, but the point is that there's plenty of water down there to have produced the water to double a mile deep pre Deluge world ocean, which when doubled represents 20% (estimated) of the water which remains down there.

And the world ocean today is about 1/5th of the thickness of the oceanic crust, which produced the steam to form the water, when the lava flowed through the midoceanic ridges during the runaway plate tectonics of the Deluge.

I'll keep trying to find the citation.

I’m sure you will…

I think the point actually IS that you have in no way demonstrated any release mechanisms for this contained water, other than “i.e. Deluge”, and furthermore no mechanism for the disappearance of it either! As I asked earlier do you have ANY evidence at all as to the change over time in this “water below”? Or is it just another highly improbable claim based on honest scientific research?

Most mainstream scientists say that the world ocean was formed by the degassing (steam) from the mantle, so you'll have to take it up with them too.

The flaw in this argument is, IF this is the mechanism you are claiming as causing the deluge, why isn’t it still happening today? What caused it to cease? And, where did all that extra deluge water go?

BTW we’re not discussing how the oceans originally formed but where your magical flood waters came from…

Read Baumgardner's paper on runaway plate tectonics.

http://libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Paley/Reports/catastrophic%20plate%20tectonics.pdf

Is this the one you mean? Don't worry I will. I have to go do some real work now but rest assured I'll be back later...

Read Baumgardner's paper on runaway plate tectonics.

Why don't you summarize the main points you got out of the article, IAC.

No, you must read it.

How much magama would have to come out to release water to cover all the mountains?

3x as much water in the mantle as in the mantle is NOTHING. As you say, skin of an apple. The density of water down there is microscopic compared to, say, a puddle. I imagine that, if the magma for some reason came to the surface to deposit water, the sheer quantity of magma needed for such a phenomenon would actually fill in an ocean.

Did Adam have a belly button?
Does God?

Initial impressions? Technically poor. John Baumgardner fails to keep up the scientific tradition of writing in both the passive voice, and the third person. Something which I, (and I am sure many others) learnt in Secondary School.

For example, “I report, I describe, results I have reported” etc.

I also find that the use of such unfortunate phrases as: “…in an almost periodic fashion…”, “…to me it is not unreasonable…”, “I personally prefer…”, “In my opinion…”, “…indicated most certainly..”, and (my personal favourite), “…I believe this almost certainly…” detract from any scientific credibility which this “paper” might possess.

In addition, a few general observations lead me to distrust the objectivity of the author. Primarily the fact that the “paper” was presented to an International Conference on Creationism, and that it has been made widely available through a website with an obvious Creationist agenda. It would appear to be of the same ilk as climate research sponsored by oil companies… not quite reliable.

Now, as for specific problems:

“…the temperature within the the layer can increase without limit…” pg1. I find this statement highly dubious, and suspect that it is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics.

With reference to the criteria for his 3D model, “When both sides are ocean, symmetric removal of plate is enforced.” pg6. This is simply unrealistic. Where two oceanic plate margins meet it is the fastest moving plate that is subducted.

“In particular, it should be emphasized that the initial condition used for the calculation does not represent an initial state for the pre-Flood Earth.” pg 6. How in the name of any deity you choose to mention can this model then be subsequently applied to the Earth to illustrate a flooding mechanism? The answer is, it can’t be.

“So I have chosen, for purposes of this illustrative calculation, to begin from a state for which we have at least a few reliable constraints in order to obtain at the end a result that somewhat resembles today’s world.” Pg 9. In other words the model has been reverse engineered, with Baumgardner including or excluding specific variables in order to obtain the results he requires.


In summary I find Baumgardner’s offering too simplistic. For example, all of his models (as ascertained from the “paper”), are based on shear strengths of one mineral, (Olivine) of one grain size, (1mm). How can that possibly be extrapolated for a planet with a crust consisting of many hundreds of minerals, with thousands of grain sizes?

IAC, I have no problem with non-conventional plate tectonics, after all Einstein himself advocated wholesale “Crustal Displacement”. I do however find that this paper falls short in so many respects as to be laughable… and yet you offer it as some kind of evidence!?

C’mon IAC, get with the program!

He was just a scientist at Los Alamos for many years, were you ever a scientist at Los Alamos Benauld?

How much magama would have to come out to release water to cover all the mountains?

3x as much water in the mantle as in the mantle is NOTHING. As you say, skin of an apple. The density of water down there is microscopic compared to, say, a puddle. I imagine that, if the magma for some reason came to the surface to deposit water, the sheer quantity of magma needed for such a phenomenon would actually fill in an ocean.

Did Adam have a belly button?
Does God?


Can anyone answer me?

I knew you had a lame rap Benauld when you started with critiquing his writing style, how desperate!

Hey, I call 'em as I see 'em Icey baby! I think it's crap! Writing style and all...

Besides I can't criticise now? You hypocrite!

He was just a scientist at Los Alamos for many years, were you ever a scientist at Los Alamos Benauld?

Yeah? Probably a lab technician... or a janitor.

Bet you a zillion dollars.

You bet me what? That the temperature in a layer of rock can increase without limit?

IAC, I can name you thousands of scientists in the form of geologists, paleontologists, paleobiologists, zoologists, archeologists, etc. which graduated from esteemed schools with esteemed degrees who disagree completely with your GFM. What's your point?

Just because there are about 20 scientists in the entire world who support your theory doesn't mean that they are right. LOL.

There are many more than 20, how naive of you!

There are many more than 20, how naive of you!

Okay, maybe 30.

Hey Zogbee, why don't you poll them?

Here's another of Baumgardner's findings: "Using a simplified version of GEMLAB, Bunge, Baumgardner and their colleagues were able to show that it takes about 150 million years for plate material to travel from the surface to the mantle-core boundary."

From: http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/1735

So, IAC. That 150 MILLION YEARS, a bit longer than you were expecting?

They were obviously not using the template of Baumgardner's model, as he believes the GFM (his term) and the roughly 6,000 year old Earth and Universe.

Obviously...:rolleyes:

Here's another of Baumgardner's findings: "Using a simplified version of GEMLAB, Bunge, Baumgardner and their colleagues were able to show that it takes about 150 million years for plate material to travel from the surface to the mantle-core boundary."

From: http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/1735

So, IAC. That 150 MILLION YEARS, a bit longer than you were expecting?

Very nice, Benauld. LOL, the GFM problems just keep flowing in.

Just ask him.

He works at the Institute for Creation Research now.

As my boy Greg Neyman has pointed out on various occasions on his website, the Flood Model advocates are constantly contradicting each other with all their different, absurd Flood Hypotheses. It's great to watch all the arguments crumble to the ground like a house of cards.

He works at the Institute for Creation Research now.

The Institute for Creation Research. I think that says it all.

Why has Neyman failed to show up here?

Well duh, he worked up his runaway plate tectonic model at Los Alamos.

I contacted him by email, and he said he would probably get on here and debate. But it took him about a week and a half to respond to my first email since he gets overflooded with emails on a daily basis. I can understand.

In any case, he has registered on the site by the username: GNeyman.

Cool.

...he believes the GFM (his term) and the roughly 6,000 year old Earth and Universe.

IAC, it takes 6000 light years to get from here to a region of space known as W3 in the Perseus arm, which is part of the Milky Way. So, if it takes that long for light to travel that distance, how is it that we see light from other, more distant galaxies.

Optical illusion maybe?

I originally gave him the wrong link to the thread we were debating on (The Noah's Ark one) and he couldn't find the actual debate. So he was never able to really see where the argument was.

I replied to his reply and gave him the correct thread, and have been waiting for about a week for a response.

Gravitational Time Dilation action.

Get out of here! You're just stringing random words together...

No, it's true.

Your universe relies upon a lot of quirky factors doesn't it IAC?

Gravitational Time Dilation action.

In every direction at once? I thought that phenomenon depended upon an aggregation of supermassive blackholes such as at the centre of galaxies?

It's the "White Hole" scenario of Humphreys, great mass in the center at the beginning, bounded Universe, space is a "fabric."

Humphrey's postulates an initial ball of water, two light years in diameter, from which the Universe sprang. He predicted the composition of Jupiter, confimed by Voyager, with this model.

"Dr. Russell Humphreys, or David Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., is an author and physicist. Dr. Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D in physics from Lousiana State University after receiving a B.S. from Duke University. Before graduating with his Ph.D., he was a believing creationist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Humphreys

I think this is all we need to know about Humphreys.

Yes, that obviously says it all.

Agreed.

Fantastic.

Humphreys was a lead scientist at Sandia Labs for many years.

I'm happy for him.

Humphreys was a lead scientist at Sandia Labs for many years. Why do creationists always argue from authority in scientific matters?

Seriously: this is not just a chicken and egg problem - it actually makes a difference in the debates.

Ice Age: You're a nutcase. When you speak of "deluge," equate it with "delusion," because that it the mental illness that you suffer from. You need professional psychiatric help.

Since you can't successfully argue your case, Valich, you call me nutcase and that I supposedly need psychiatric help, is this you modus operandi when you get your ass kicked in debate?

IAC, could you tell us how Baumgardner's theory of a 6000 year old universe; which you appear to advocate, explains findings from the field of dendrochronology which produce continuous tree ring data extending back ten thousand years to the end of the last ice age? Or do you merely discount this evidence because it does not fit into your theory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/

http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/

Just to put your mind at rest, at its simplest this is counting (and adding up) tree rings… something which I’m sure, even the most ardent creationist is capable of grasping.

As a slight aside, the oldest tree yet discovered (a bristlecone pine, Pinus longaeva) called Prometheus, was at least 5000 years old when felled in 1964, Great Basin National Park, Nevada. That’s 83.33% of the age of your Universe. Now that really was one OLD tree!

BTW when did that Flood of yours happen again? Shouldn’t that pine have drowned!?

If you think tree rings necessarily denote years, then I've got some investment property for you in Sudan.

Lol! That's all you could come up with!? :roflmao: I think you should click on a few of those links and do some reading Icey... you seem deficient in SO many areas.

N.B. No real answer given in rebuttal of the points I have raised from IAC.

Would you like to buy some investment property in Sudan?

In any case, regardless of whether I think they denote years you can't dismiss the findings from a whole field of science, in one or two scentences I might add, their findings remain the same...

N.B. I'm guessing the same might be true again...

Are you interested in property in southern or central Sudan?

Could I ask a moderator to step in here please?

Either IAC would like to debate these matters, (which is why I assume he bothers to log in) in a useful and meaningful fashion; or not - in which case he should refrain from posting such puerile nonsense.

P.S. If you highlight all of the text in my previous post, you can see that I have predicted such a childish modus operandi.

Crybaby Karnak.

That ark must been pretty strong to survive multiple tsunamis, right IAC?

Article Excerpts:

“Wave (e.g. tsunami) refraction on the continental shelf would tend to transport sediments shoreward.”

"Another substantial source of water suggested by this model is displaced ocean water (6, 7]. Rapid emplacement of isostatically lighter mantle material at the spreading centers would raise the ocean bottom, displacing ocean water onto the continents. Baumgardner [7] estimates a rise of sea level of more than one kilometer from this mechanism alone."

“The rapid bending of elastic lithosphere and rapid inter-plate shear of plates at subduction zones as well as abrupt phase transitions as subducting plates are rapidly moved downward would be expected to produce frequent, high- intensity earthquakes at the subduction zones. There is also earthquake activity associated with explosive volcanism, isostatic adjustment, continental collision, etc.”

The dimensions of the Ark were shown to be the most seaworthy possible by nautical engineers, how'd those ancients know that?

IAC, do you type with a wand attached to your head or something, and recently having acquired a new brand can now only type random words? Honestly, I'd like to know.

The dimensions of the Ark were shown to be the most seaworthy possible by nautical engineers, how'd those ancients know that?

Wow, I don't know what to say.

It is quite amazing.

Yeah, what a fairy tale. Again, I don't care how seaworthy it was. Nothing can survive a tsunami, genius.

The swells came from all directions, churning action, more than huge walls of water.

Okay, great. So Noah's ark could survive huge 500 foot high waves traveling at 500 mph.

That aside, let's go back to the "syngameon" thing.

First question: Why don't any of the original "hyper mutts" exist today?

Start a new thread.

I'm going to but first can you answer me the following questions:

1. The day after creation week, was the land in one large clump like Pangea?

2. When God created animals, did he create the "Super-Genetic" hyper mutts only, or did he create the millions of separate species which exist?

3. When he created the animals, did he only create one of each specific type and let them fill the earth gradually (like humans) or did he fill the earth with animals immediately?

These are vital to my thread question. Thanks for the response in advance, IAC.

I didn't bother to read most of the pages. Just a few that had key points.

Let me add a super-key point that nobody has said, and that creationists still can't rebuttal:

The ark wasn't big enough to hold all of the animals ON THE PLANET. Two of everything would prove vastly too large. And the ark was vastly too small.

There's also a simply case of buoyancy. A simple google will find you many stories on how the ark bit is impossible.

Hey NDS, tell him about syngameons, or maybe he'll look it up himself.

It goes way deeper than that Jeremy. The rationalizations of these young earth creationists never cease to amaze.

They would argue that, oddly enough, Noah only had to take 500 "kinds" of animals on the ark (1,000 animals total) to produce the millions of types of animals which we see today. For example, for every species of cat, Noah would have only have to have taken 2 animals which represented the "cat" "kind." Apparently, the animals that Noah took on the ark all had tons of DNA information in them, enough to produce the variety we see today solely from hybridizations and isolated adapting.

This means that, essentially, 500 species or "kinds" of animals would have to magically turn into 10 millions species or "kinds" of animals within 300 years. Impossible? Of course. In some animal "kinds" we see hundreds of separate, distinct, variations of species. Hundreds of variations of "kinds" can't be produced in 3 or 4 generations, obviously.

NDS you are not a religious person and thus can never understand how the universe works. Gods can create and destroy in a blink of the eye, these entities can change a single species into a billion and leave us unaware of the change. For people like IceAge magic does and has happened and no amount of scientific study will ever replace their faith in their paper backed, mass produced idols.

You can not use logic to argue religious ideology.

It goes way deeper than that Jeremy. The rationalizations of these young earth creationists never cease to amaze.

I know NDS, I did not think that writing a book on the subject would make anyone read it, though.

So I simply skimmed over the top, and left it to the readers to research it. Like they should be doing. :itold: