Re: Heat Problem?

From: Diane Roy (Dianeroy@peoplepc.com)
Date: Mon Jul 31 2000 - 02:15:16 EDT

  • Next message: gordon brown: "Re: Heat Problem?"

      From: PHSEELY@aol.com
      paul
      Since the Flood had to cover the mountains and Mt Everest was there at the
      time of the Flood according to consensual geology, their assumption is
      perfectly logical. Further, having Mt Everest rise from 2km to its present
      height during or since the Flood really is absurd and
      preposterous---especially considering you have no revelation to that effect
      and the tenor of the biblical account is otherwise. The Creationary model
      with regard to mountains is resting neither on Scripture nor science, but
      only speculation.

      AR: To begin with, Creationary Catastrophists, do not accept "consensual geology" time lines. It is incumbent upon those in discussion with Creationary Catastrophists to at least be aware of their positions. Unless you are familiar with Woodmorappe's "Mythology of Radiometric Dating" (1999) you are wasting your and my time in making such statments.

      Along with the astrogeologic events, CPT (Catastrophic Plate Tectonics) also occurred during the Flood Catastrophe. CPT began with the breaking up of the crust, that is, the breakup of the "fountains" of the great deep [see: http://www.tagnet.org/anotherviewpoint/fountain.htm ]. CPT pretty much came to an end with the stopping of the breakup 150 days later. The Andes, Rockys, Alps, Himalayas, Hindu Kush, etc., including Everest were all formed most likely toward the end of this time period.

      That mountains were raised up during the flood is alluded to in Psalms 104:6-9, "Thou didst cover it [the land] with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the sound of thy thunder they took flight. The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place which thou didst appoint for them. Thou didst set a bound which they should not pass. so that they might not again cover the earth." RSV

      So the concept of mountains rising during the flood does rest on scripture

      Vandergraaf, Chuck vandergraaft@aecl.ca
      A general comment: Allen/Diane: one cannot achieve higher precision than
      that of the values of the variable used in the calculation. Your fraction
      of the earth's surface covered by land is given as 0.29 and the values of
      your intermediate calculations should therefore not be contain 34
      significant figures.

      AR: Because of my Engineering background I am well aware of precision in calculations. I used the long number of digits because that is the way they came from the calculator and I did not want anyone to suppose that I had messaged the numbers when truncating the intermediate results. If you were to use the same calculator and enter the same numbers you will get the same long intermediate results. By putting them in their entirety in the article I made it possible so one can clearly follow along on the calculator what I did.

      Your solution does mesh with Gen 7:11 "... on that day all the fountains of
      the great deep burst forth ..." (RSV). However, does it agree with the rest
      of that verse and the next, "... and the windows of the heavens were opened.
      And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights."

      AR: The Hebrew word which is translated as windows is a most interesting word. Arabah, comes from the root word arab which means to ambush. All the other derivatives of arab have similar meanings -- to lie in wait, to hide, etc. In the Middle East, widows are often covered by lattice work panels. This allows for those [especially the women] looking out to remain hidden from view. The opening up of such a window, by removing the lattice, reveals what has been hidden behind. The phrase 'windows of heaven' using Arabah implies something hidden, lying in wait, in the heavens. The opening of those windows means that what was hidden is then revealed. Asteroids are invisible to the naked eye. When they streak across the sky without warning, striking the earth, they are revealed.

      We have 3 events described in Gen 7:11, 1) The break up of the continents, 2) the striking of the earth by asteroids and 3) rain as the natural result of the first two events.

      Rain fell for 40 days and nights and then the ark was floated on the waters. [Gen 7:17]. It continued raining for another 110 days until the window was closed and the continents stopped moving [Gen. 7:24 - 8:2].

      As to your criticism of Soroka and Nelson, what about Gen 7:19, "And the
      waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains
      under the whole heaven were covered." IMHO, that would include Mt. Everest.
      If you exclude Mt. Everest, what about areas of high altitude where people
      may have been living?

      AR: As explained before, Creationary Catastrophists propose that all mountain ranges uplifted in association with Plate Tectonics were raised up during the latter part of the Flood by CPT.

      If the source of the flood was indeed ocean water, how would the large
      amounts of dissolved solids in the ocean water have affected plant life
      afterwards? Are olive trees tolerant to saline water? How long, after the
      flood, would it have taken for the TDS of the groundwater to return to
      normal? Note that most of the water would have had to drain back into the
      ocean and that any residual salts remaining would have had to be leached out
      of the ground by rain water. Can this be accomplished in the time span
      given in Genesis?

      AR: Woodmorappe has address all this in his book "Noah's Ark, a feasibility study." There is no reason for me to respond to this for it has already been done and anyone attempting to discuss models with Creationary Catastrophists should already be familiar with his comments.

      Gordon brown gbrown@euclid.Colorado.EDU
      Genesis affirms that post-Flood geographical features were
      also pre-Flood features (2:10-14).

      AR: Since Gen. 2 is all allegory anyway why would a list of geographical features be of any interest?

      Creationary Catastrophists for the most part feel that Moses edited several oral and/or written family histories into the work we now call Genesis. Literary evidence as noted by Wiseman points toward this conclusion. With this in mind there are two possible solutions. 1) the descriptions and notes of the 4 rivers and environs are faithfully recorded as originally spoken or written. These would refer to places and environs which were destroyed in the Flood. The fact that rivers and places have the same or similar names after the flood may find solution in the fact that hundreds of places, rivers, towns, etc. of the New World (America) are named after the originals in the Old World (Europe, Great Britain, etc.) with which pilgrims, settlers and explorers were familiar. 2) Moses may have annotated the descriptions according to conditions now, after resettlement and renaming of a new and different world, perhaps without being aware of possible changes between pre- and post-flood geography.

      Also, a severe ice age after the Flood
      would mean that God violated his promise to Noah not to disrupt the
      seasons (Gen. 8:22).

      AR: Michael Oard proposes in "An Ice Age caused by the Genesis Flood." (1990) an ice age different than the type of Ice Age as envisioned by most scientists. He calls it a Warm Ice Age. The accumulation of Ice was not because the entire planet was undergoing global cooling or freezing. Rather, the extra warmth of the oceans, coupled with barren continents allowed vast ice sheet to build up on parts of the globe. The regular succession of season went on as normal. His book has been around long enough that anyone involved with the Evolutionism/Creationism controversy ought to long ago be familiar with it and I need not make lengthy explanations at this time.


    tiki.gif

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 02:16:18 EDT