Real Science Friday: New Island, Old Look

[Jefferson]

Real Science Friday: New Island, Old Look

This is the show from Friday January 11th, 2007.

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

Fred Williams: It kind of cracks me up how [evolutionists] will look at Mars and they'll see geological formations and conclude, "Hey, there was a global flood on Mars" but since that's not in the Bible, they feel safe to say that.

Bob Enyart: Right. Mars, where there's no water that we can find, virtually, and they say Mars was once covered by water. And the earth, which is 2/3rds covered with water a mile deep, and they say, "Oh, there could never have been a global flood."

SUMMARY:

* New Island, Old Look: Creation Bob Enyart and Creation Research Society webmaster Fred Williams talk through the fascinating articles in the latest Creation magazine, including about a brand new island that has major geographic features that evolutionists say would typically indicate millions of years.

Note: Time permitting, a KGOV staffer will upload a detailed summary of this show.

Post show note: You can now view the new anti-Romney TV ad that is running in South Carolina at ARTLaction.com. And perhaps you could be among the first to click to make a comment about the ad and to encourage ARTL!

Today's Resource: Bob Enyart Live will sign you up for a subscription to Creation magazine as a thank you if you order the BEL Science Pack or Donate $50 or more to BEL! (And thanks for spreading the word about the Lord and His righteousness!)

 

[Jukia]

I could not get this to play. Anyone have a cite to the scientific report indicating that there was a global flood on Mars? Please do not provide AiG etc. cites, I's like to see some real science.
Thanks

 

[DoogieTalons]

I could not get this to play. Anyone have a cite to the scientific report indicating that there was a global flood on Mars? Please do not provide AiG etc. cites, I's like to see some real science.
Thanks

I know they only have assertions to go on. There hasn't been a paper on water on mars covering. I have never read a scientific article where a scientist has claimed that mars WAS covered in water.

I read somewhere that mars has perhaps had water on all of it surface at some point, like earth. A lot of what we walk on was once under water, but not all at the same time REAL SCIENCE FRIDAY... tell me Jefferson, is that said with a bucket of irony.

When you make asserstions about what Scientists actually claim it should be easy enough to point to when it was said and by who. Whenever I make a statement about creationists it's very easy to pinpoint exactly which idiot said what, when... and when it was rebuked by someone with half a brain.

 

[chatmaggot]

I could not get this to play. Anyone have a cite to the scientific report indicating that there was a global flood on Mars? Please do not provide AiG etc. cites, I's like to see some real science.
Thanks

This doesn't directly answer your question but it is interesting that the reasoning that is used to describe a Grand Canyon like formation on Mars is the same one that has been used by creationists for YEARS about the original Grand Canyon on Earth.

The force and volume of the water was enough to carve a valley 6,900 feet (2,070 meters) deep and 550 miles ( 885 kilometers) long within a matter of months, he said.

However, evolutionists claim that the Colorado river formed our Grand Canyon over eons.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_floods_020621.html

 

[Jukia]

I know they only have assertions to go on. There hasn't been a paper on water on mars covering. I have never read a scientific article where a scientist has claimed that mars WAS covered in water.

I read somewhere that mars has perhaps had water on all of it surface at some point, like earth. A lot of what we walk on was once under water, but not all at the same time REAL SCIENCE FRIDAY... tell me Jefferson, is that said with a bucket of irony.

When you make asserstions about what Scientists actually claim it should be easy enough to point to when it was said and by who. Whenever I make a statement about creationists it's very easy to pinpoint exactly which idiot said what, when... and when it was rebuked by someone with half a brain.

I think there is evidence that some of the really big canyon systems on Mars seem to have been caused by massive water flows. The theory seems to be that they were pretty catastrophic. However, I have yet to see anything suggesting that Mars was actually covered by water ala Noah's Flood.

 

[Jukia]

This doesn't directly answer your question but it is interesting that the reasoning that is used to describe a Grand Canyon like formation on Mars is the same one that has been used by creationists for YEARS about the original Grand Canyon on Earth.



However, evolutionists claim that the Colorado river formed our Grand Canyon over eons.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_floods_020621.html

I think you would get more mileage if you referenced geologists rather than evolutionists. Would be a bit more accurate and avoid the obvious bias shown.
Still waiting for a cite to the literature suggesting Mars was totally covered by H2O

Thanks

 

[DoogieTalons]

Still waiting for a cite to the literature suggesting Mars was totally covered by H2O

Thanks

Don't waste your day or anything... I mean like pop back every now and then, don't just hit refresh a few thousand times :chuckle:

 

[aharvey]

This doesn't directly answer your question but it is interesting that the reasoning that is used to describe a Grand Canyon like formation on Mars is the same one that has been used by creationists for YEARS about the original Grand Canyon on Earth.



However, evolutionists claim that the Colorado river formed our Grand Canyon over eons.

Quote:
The force and volume of the water was enough to carve a valley 6,900 feet (2,070 meters) deep and 550 miles ( 885 kilometers) long within a matter of months, he said.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_floods_020621.html

Jukia's right, it's a geological claim, not an evolutionary claim, that the Grand Canyon was formed gradually. Do you think perhaps there are differences in the appearance of the two canyons that might suggest that they were formed under different circumstances?

But I digress. All the examples that creationists give for canyons carved quickly thanks to the sudden movement of a large amount of water have a common scenario: vast amounts of water on one side of a skinny barrier; nothing, and at a much lower elevation, on the other side of the barrier. The barrier is suddenly breached, and gravity/pressure shifts cause the water to blast through the barrier, pulled towards a lower destination that is large enough to allow the water to continue to surge through without countering back pressure. How can the geology and geography of the Grand Canyon region be fit to such a scenario? How can such a local scenario be fit into a truly global flood scenario?

 

[Jefferson]

I could not get this to play.

Try downloading it instead of streaming it. The site has been having streaming problems recently.

 

[Jukia]

Try downloading it instead of streaming it. The site has been having streaming problems recently.

Thanks, but I am at work, not sure I want to down load it here.

 

[chatmaggot]

I think there is evidence that some of the really big canyon systems on Mars seem to have been caused by massive water flows. The theory seems to be that they were pretty catastrophic. However, I have yet to see anything suggesting that Mars was actually covered by water ala Noah's Flood.

After doing a few searches I am guessing the following is the basis for the global martian flood quotes:

(1) A general article from the NY Times that states the following:

The total release of gases from Tharsis magma may have produced the equivalent of a global layer of water nearly 400 feet deep, although much of the water would have been lost to space, Phillips said.

(2) The abstract from the original article the NY Times was reporting on.

(3) The original article from Science.

Hope this helps.

Any thoughts?

 

[chatmaggot]

I also found the following article from an old earth creation website stating that they too could not find any evidence in the literature of anyone stating that a global flood has occurred on Mars:

http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/other/sdc/sdc_flood_mars.htm

I have emailed them and asked them to comment on the links that I provided above to get their persepctive.

 

[Johnny]

Bob Enyart: Right. Mars, where there's no water that we can find, virtually, and they say Mars was once covered by water. And the earth, which is 2/3rds covered with water a mile deep, and they say, "Oh, there could never have been a global flood."

Bob is rehashing old material which he admitted was overstated and exaggerated. He even said he'd correct it. Check out my post from 2005 which resulted in this post from Bob Enyart:

On my show yesterday, I overstated the case saying that our scientists claim that “Mars was once completely flooded with water.” I'll correct that today on air. I should have said, “some” of our scientists are saying Mars may have been “half-covered” by water.

I was to flippantly repeating or even exaggerating the reports I’ve heard for many years that “Mars was flooded,” “drenched,” “covered,” “catastrophic flooding,” “awash in water.”​

 

[chatmaggot]

Bob is rehashing old material which he admitted was overstated and exaggerated. He even said he'd correct it. Check out my post from 2005 which resulted in this post from Bob Enyart:

On my show yesterday, I overstated the case saying that our scientists claim that “Mars was once completely flooded with water.” I'll correct that today on air. I should have said, “some” of our scientists are saying Mars may have been “half-covered” by water.

I was to flippantly repeating or even exaggerating the reports I’ve heard for many years that “Mars was flooded,” “drenched,” “covered,” “catastrophic flooding,” “awash in water.”​

What about the posts that I provided which some scientists do say that Mars was covered with water?

Some scientists say it wasn't covered, some say that it was half covered, some say that it was totally covered.

The point is...SOME are saying that it was covered yet deny that our Earth was covered when our Earth is already about 3/4 covered and the evidence of water on Mars is controversial.

 

[aharvey]

After doing a few searches I am guessing the following is the basis for the global martian flood quotes:

(1) A general article from the NY Times that states the following:
"The total release of gases from Tharsis magma may have produced the equivalent of a global layer of water nearly 400 feet deep, although much of the water would have been lost to space, Phillips said."

(2) The abstract from the original article the NY Times was reporting on.

(3) The original article from Science.

Hope this helps.

Any thoughts?

I think you're misunderstanding what is being said here. Both the NYT and the Science article refer to an amount of water that would be equivalent to a 120 m global layer, which is very different from saying the planet might actually have been submerged under a 120 m thick layer of water! We can use our own planet to illustrate the difference:

Amount of water on Earth: about 1,300,000,000 km³
Surface area of Earth: about 510,000,000 km²

Using the approach in the Mars paper, we can see that the amount of water on Earth is equivalent to a 2,550 m global layer (1,300,000,000 km³/510,000,000 km²) of water. And yet, I'm sure you'll agree, the Earth is not covered with a 2,550 m global layer of water!

 

[koban]

And yet, I'm sure you'll agree, the Earth is not covered with a 2,550 m global layer of water!

Parts of it are. :think:

 

[aharvey]

Parts of it are. :think:

Parts of the earth are covered by a global layer of water? koban, you've made my day!

 

[koban]

Parts of the earth are covered by a global layer of water? koban, you've made my day!

:doh:




( or I could pretend I had meant it that way and challenge you to tell me what you would call that layer of water that is in some places more than 2550 m - extraterrestial? :chuckle: )

 

[chatmaggot]

I think you're misunderstanding what is being said here. Both the NYT and the Science article refer to an amount of water that would be equivalent to a 120 m global layer, which is very different from saying the planet might actually have been submerged under a 120 m thick layer of water! We can use our own planet to illustrate the difference:

Amount of water on Earth: about 1,300,000,000 km³
Surface area of Earth: about 510,000,000 km²

Using the approach in the Mars paper, we can see that the amount of water on Earth is equivalent to a 2,550 m global layer (1,300,000,000 km³/510,000,000 km²) of water. And yet, I'm sure you'll agree, the Earth is not covered with a 2,550 m global layer of water!

I see what you're saying.

 

[aharvey]

:doh:

No harm, no foul!

( or I could pretend I had meant it that way and challenge you to tell me what you would call that layer of water that is in some places more than 2550 m - extraterrestial? :chuckle: )

If only; then we all could finally agree that The Global Flood simply meant The Flood That Was Not Extraterrestrial, not The Flood That Covered The Entire Globe!