• 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.

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I am removing 1M1S from this thread, as he seems more intent on promoting flat-earthism and attacking modern science than he does discussing the Biblical Flood, which is what this thread is about.

A reminder that this is the "Creation Science" section, not the "Conspiracy Theory" section, of TOL. Flat-earthism is not science, just conspiracy theory, and thus belongs in the "...and the Rest" forum.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
I am removing 1M1S from this thread, as he seems more intent on promoting flat-earthism and attacking modern science than he does discussing the Biblical Flood, which is what this thread is about.

A reminder that this is the "Creation Science" section, not the "Conspiracy Theory" section, of TOL. Flat-earthism is not science, just conspiracy theory, and thus belongs in the "...and the Rest" forum.
Can we give him a second chance then? Can we move this thread to "...and the Rest"? I'd prefer to welcome every TOL user without exception to participate in this thread, as I'd like to come to a conclusion on the matter if possible, and any TOL user might make the key point that we need that brings the whole picture together. I didn't realize how much having the thread in this forum was going to limit my goal for the thread.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Can we give him a second chance then?

No.

Can we move this thread to "...and the Rest"?

This thread doesn't belong there.

If you want to start a thread on flat-earthism, we've been there, done that already: https://theologyonline.com/threads/the-earth-is-flat-and-we-never-went-to-the-moon.38074/.

I'd prefer to welcome every TOL user without exception to participate in this thread,

He wasn't interested in participating, only promoting flat-earthism and trying to derail the thread.

as I'd like to come to a conclusion on the matter if possible,

That can be done without 1M1S.

and any TOL user might make the key point that we need that brings the whole picture together.

1M1S wasn't/isn't interested in any of that.

I didn't realize how much having the thread in this forum was going to limit my goal for the thread.

There's nothing wrong with having this thread in this section of the board. The problem was 1M1S, not your thread, nor its location. Hence why I removed him from this thread.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So to try to understand you
Yeah, I appreciate that I am not doing the greatest job of this. :D

you're saying before continents or at least if we just imagined the earth without the continents, that there was a single basically uniformly dense crust.
Yes.

Then, the order is important here, then parts of the uniformly dense crust changed to become less dense. Then, the crust began to 'bunch up' where it had become less dense, and that's why there are continents now.

How far off am I?

That's pretty close.

And I know that the Flood happened in all of this somewhere. I don't know yet how the continents, the different crust densities, the 'fountains of the deep' and the world ocean all go together yet, but I'm working as hard as I can on it.

Walt Brown has four phases of the flood: Rupture, Flood, Drift, and Recovery.

Rupture was when the fountains broke up the previously global crust.
Drift was when the hydroplates (basically the two halves of the crust) moved.
Recovery is isostasy in action.

When you say "crust" to an establishment Earth scientist, he will talk about a global feature that has essentially zero-width cracks in it. My analogies are somewhat aimed at that understanding.

Appreciate your help.
It is an honor to be able to reciprocate on the help you have shared.
 

Right Divider

Body part
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?
Originally, the crust was on top of the water (the deep) and on top of the mantle.
Isn't the continental crust older than the oceanic crust?
Technically, all of the earth is the same age. Since it was all created on the same day.
Two different substances side by side, and two different ages side by side.
The "oceanic crust" is not really crust... it is exposed mantle.
That right there would be enough to ponder "How the heck did that happen?"
This video is really worth the time to watch. It is a bit long, so perhaps watch it a little at a time.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
What some are calling the "oceanic crust" is not really crust at all. It is actually just the exposed mantle.

Depends, are they talking about what's in the Pacific Ocean? Or in the Atlantic Ocean?
 

Derf

Well-known member
Yeah. That's why carpet and eggshell analogies do not paint a complete picture.
The carpet analogy might defeat the lift continent idea. Folded carpet is denser (lighter per unit area) than unfolded carpet.

The crust of mantel works.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I am removing 1M1S from this thread, as he seems more intent on promoting flat-earthism and attacking modern science than he does discussing the Biblical Flood, which is what this thread is about.
Seriously, why??
His opinion is just that, an opinion, just like yours.
A lot of your viewpoint is only "theory" also since you were not there to see how it all took place.
He's not hurting anything or anyone by voicing his opinion as we all do.
 

Derf

Well-known member
You mean less dense, right?
I meant more dense--thanks for asking for clarification. Remember we're talking about the amount of material covering a particular area of the mantel. If a carpet is a laid flat, it's about 3/4 inches in thickness, and it covers some amount of subfloor, let's say 10 square feet. If you crinkle it up, it's the same amount of material (10 sf x 3/4 in), squished into a smaller area of subfloor (let's say into 5 sf). The density is defined as the mass per unit area (area in the denominator), and it rises as the denominator decreases.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Seriously, why??
His opinion is just that, an opinion, just like yours.
A lot of your viewpoint is only "theory" also since you were not there to see how it all took place.
He's not hurting anything or anyone by voicing his opinion as we all do.
You'll understand the more you hear from 1m1s.

But I agree a warning would be more appropriate for now.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
Yeah, I appreciate that I am not doing the greatest job of this. :D

Yes.





That's pretty close.



Walt Brown has four phases of the flood: Rupture, Flood, Drift, and Recovery.

Rupture was when the fountains broke up the previously global crust.
Ah. "Broke up", I hadn't thought of that. The 'first', antediluvian crust "broke up" during "Rupture". That provides another 'degree of freedom' in this inquiry.

For you I'll clarify that I mean to with this thread provide something akin to the inverse of my 'alternative theory' to Christ's Resurrection being factual. (In that case, if the Resurrection is fictional, it's simply too simplistic to just say it's a hoax, because such a hoax has no reason in it, unless you conceive of one, and my conception is that the only 'modus operandi' 'MO' that holds water is a 'suicide pact' with Jesus, Judas, John the Baptist, and all the Apostles including Paul. Basically everyone killed or otherwise dispatched in the New Testament was involved. Then, you still need a reason for the pact, and that would have to be something that worked. In other words, you can't just imagine or assume that they attempted in their pact to accomplish something that failed, like to convert everybody to the Old Covenant for instance. It has to be something that 'stuck', so my mind wanders toward something like the then widespread idolatry. The presence in the world of all sorts of temples with altars and priests offering sacrifices to false gods might 'ruffle the feathers' enough of a group of very devout Jewish men, maniacally jealous for their own God over all the others. If that is what they attempted to accomplish through their suicide pact, then that might begin to make sense as to why they would collectively and wittingly participate in the plot, which features the Resurrection as a key part of the story. Basically all the idolatrous practices have disappeared. They succeeded, if this was what they were trying to do, in the 'alternative theory' if the Resurrection is fictional.)

Anyway this kind of alternative theory comes from 'playing devil's advocate'. And it really makes people think, whether or not they're already Christians, it basically 'makes it real' for them, to really 'get into the headspace' of what we're all really talking about really happening.

As far as this thread's concerned, either the Flood really happened or it didn't. So if it did happen (if we are to take the Bible literally, like how we all take the Bible literally when it reports that Jesus is risen) then how? We already have the 'majority report' that it never happened and that party's own 'alternative theory' to the global Flood, which is akin to my Resurrection alternative theory 'suicide pact' set out above.

The details of how Christ was raised escape us, we only know that He was eventually recognized, and that His body was now 'glorified' and 'spiritual', which doesn't mean His scars were absent----they are still there in His glorified and spiritual body.

Basically we only have an earth that hopefully still retains its own 'scars' from the Flood. If we can identify them positively as 'scars', then I think we'll have achieved what I'm hoping we can do here.
Drift was when the hydroplates (basically the two halves of the crust) moved.
Recovery is isostasy in action.

When you say "crust" to an establishment Earth scientist, he will talk about a global feature that has essentially zero-width cracks in it. My analogies are somewhat aimed at that understanding.
I'm level zero geology. Alluding to Kung Fu Panda, when Shifu tells Po, "There is now a 'level zero'". That's me in geology.

So what you're saying here with "zero-width cracks" sounds like 'faults' and has to do with 'tectonic plates'?
It is an honor to be able to reciprocate on the help you have shared.
Mutual, tyvm Stripe.

I've been thinking more about what would constitute strong, substantive, sustaining corroborating evidence----this is what the 'scars' would be. One thing I thought of was, is there any reason why rainbows would only appear on an earth covered by 70% sea, but not on an earth covered with only like 7% or 0.7% surface water? iow can we calculate whether the first large scale rainbows happened because of the Flood's residual water, the world ocean? Do rainbows only happen on a 'blue' earth but not a 'green' one?
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
I meant more dense--thanks for asking for clarification. Remember we're talking about the amount of material covering a particular area of the mantel. If a carpet is a laid flat, it's about 3/4 inches in thickness, and it covers some amount of subfloor, let's say 10 square feet. If you crinkle it up, it's the same amount of material (10 sf x 3/4 in), squished into a smaller area of subfloor (let's say into 5 sf). The density is defined as the mass per unit area (area in the denominator), and it rises as the denominator decreases.
That's true, but that's more of a 'bulk density' reasoning, and what I'm reading is that the continental crust is not just 'bunched up' rock that has a lower bulk density as a result of the 'bunching up', but that it is inherently less dense. It's constituted differently from oceanic crust, microscopically, the internal crystal structures make it more or less dense, and all the continental crust is less dense and all the oceanic crust is more dense.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Seriously, why??

Answered in the very post you quoted.

His opinion is just that, an opinion, just like yours.

It's off topic to this thread.

A lot of your viewpoint is only "theory"

Yes, scientific theory. Not Conspiracy.

also since you were not there to see how it all took place.

And that's relevant, how?

He's not hurting anything or anyone by voicing his opinion as we all do.

No, but he was trying to derail the thread.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
Assuming all the continental crust is basically uniform top-to-bottom (from the mountains all the way down to the mantle, iow assuming the continental crust isn't 'on top of' oceanic crust, like in 'layers'), and because it is on average about 1 km above sea level, it is much thicker than the oceanic crust. The average depth of the oceans is about 4 km, so the continental crust is at least 4 km thicker than oceanic crust. If oceanic crust is 7-10 km thick, continental crust is 11-14 km thick. That's like 50% thicker!
 
Top