1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
I don't need a strawman.
I used to believe in all that pseudoscience myself.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
The biggest evidence of the Flood? The world ocean.
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
I used to believe in all that pseudoscience myself.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Last edited:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Stretched out the earth higher than the waters.
The Hebrew word Al can also mean upwards or higher than.
The ones lower than the dry land.
So masses are not drawn toward each other according to an inverse square calculation?
You're going to do very well to show how that was debunked.
Begging the question is a fallacy.
What part of "I don't have any particular attachment to the theory of relativity" do you not understand?
Saying it doesn't make it so, and apples still fall from trees.
Such as "the waters below the firmament" perhaps, as opposed to "the waters above the firmament and under the heavens"...?
You're making my argument for me. Thanks.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
'Continental' crust is less dense than 'oceanic' crust, which is denser. The rock is denser under the ocean that on the land.
So is continental crust sort of 'floating' on a continuous spherical surface of oceanic crust, or does the continental crust go all the way down to the mantle just like the oceanic crust does?
iow if you were looking up from the magma to the 'bottom' of the earth's crust, would you 'see' all oceanic crust looking in at you, or is the oceanic crust 'broken up' by the continental crust?
So is continental crust sort of 'floating' on a continuous spherical surface of oceanic crust, or does the continental crust go all the way down to the mantle just like the oceanic crust does?
iow if you were looking up from the magma to the 'bottom' of the earth's crust, would you 'see' all oceanic crust looking in at you, or is the oceanic crust 'broken up' by the continental crust?
The crust varies in thickness. Those variations get labeled things like "oceanic" and "continental."
It's like if you had a spherical egg with a regular shell, then you cracked the egg. However, you don't pull the shell off. Instead, you just push it around on the egg a bit. Now imagine that the shell is somewhat like putty. Some places where you push will create hills and valleys. The hills are "continental" and the valleys are "oceanic."
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Yeah but how does that explain the different density rock? Or are you saying that my information's wrong, and that all crust is actually the same density? It's remarkable to me----if true----that continental rock is 'lighter' than oceanic rock. And that's what prompted my questions.
Right Divider
Body part
The crust is primarily granite.
The "oceanic rock" is primarily basalt, which is more dense than granite.
This book explains this very thoroughly: In the Beginning
Last edited:
Hmm. I like these kinds of questions!
I'm no expert at all in geology, so pardon me if my questions seem naïve about some things I've heard.
Don't we have continental crust (granite) and oceanic crust (basalt) side by side all around the world (not layered atop and below, but side by side), and aren't they made up of different minerals?
Isn't the continental crust older than the oceanic crust?
Two different substances side by side, and two different ages side by side.
That right there would be enough to ponder "How the heck did that happen?"
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
A calculation can't change the results of experimentation that proved no movement therefore no attraction.
Last edited:
You may want to watch this playlist where Bryan Nickel goes through the Hydroplate Theory in detail in an easy to understand format.
(Start on the second video if you want to watch each individual section separately, as the first is all six parts combined.)
I don't recommend watching the videos out of order, at all. Even if you don't have time to watch them all, you should still watch them in order, as there are details in earlier videos that are required to understand what's going on in later videos.
Nope. The continental crust is the same age as oceanic crust (I presume you mean the seafloor in the Pacific Ocean, which is just continental crust, submerged.)
Think about what happens when you make a dent in a ping pong ball, that's basically similar to what happened with the crust in the Pacific Ocean, as a result of the Mid-Atlantic Rlidge forming, just on a global scale.
The details can be found in the playlist I provided above.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Then quit doing it.
All experiments showed the earth to be stationary.
That killed Newton's theory that required gravity to make things move.
I'm with you.
Einstein had to get things moving again. ( protect the heliocentric model)
He did it by saying objects at rest are accelerating as well as warping space and time.
Purdy stupid right?
Yep but it's the only alternative that's been put forth in the last 100 years.
Except for us dimwits who believe God when he says the earth is fixed. (geocentric)
Last edited:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
One of the problems with all that is, God never called heaven, earth.
Last edited:
The processes that pushed the rock around favored granite in oceanic crust and sedimentary rocks in continental.
The only thing I would take issue with was that there might be one type of crust on top of another. That would imply that the crust could be determined by the type of rock that was found or its characteristics.
By necessity, less dense material tends to rise. I think you might be looking at the issue like it is the "continentalness" that causes the density rather than the other way around.
The basalt was an afterthought.
Get a mile-long carpet and roll it out. Then shove it around so it piles up in places. The places that are piled up are "continental." The places that aren't are "oceanic."
There is no easy analogy for the basalt. It is a volcanic process that was added after or as the oceanic/continental distinction came about. While oceanic crust is characterized by basaltic rocks, originally there was no difference between the types of crust.