This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

See? I told you, but you wouldn't believe me.

#31hunter_gohanPosted 1/2/2013 4:29:19 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
He said "the continents were pushed down by the weight of the glaciers" not "the poles were pushed down by the weight of the glaciers."


Of course not. Because he doesn't even seem to be talking about the same 'down' as you are. He's talking about the ice caps pushing the continents 'down'(away from the poles and towards the equator) while you're talking about water pushing 'down'(towards the center of the earth).

Also if the water was pushing the seabeds towards the center of the earth, wouldn't that also drag the continents down with them? Meaning that before it was pushed down it would've needed even more water to completely flood the earth?
---
If you find yourself falling into madness -- dive. -Malkavian Clan Book 1st edition
We eat gods for breakfast. - Dr Egon Spengler
#32CuddleWithClawsPosted 1/2/2013 4:41:50 PM(edited)
See? So if frozen water can push down a landmass, so can liquid water, provided enough of it is gathered over an area.

Nope.

Water and ice may both be phases of H20, but their rheologies and mechanical behaviors when interacting with the environment are vastly different such that what you propose is essentially impossible.

Let me explain:

Given any chances, water will spread laterally much, much, much faster than a glacier ever could. Simple matter of differences in plasticity and rheology.

Water percolates into the ground and will continue to move down-gradient, eventually arriving at sea level if not blocked or contained by impervious strata. Ice doesn't. Essentially, water will go down until it hits sea level, solid bedrock, or deep-seated impervious aquitards / aquicludes. If the former, it's only going to spit a drop in the bucket that is the ocean. Of course, the ocean is above oceanic crust, which is already kept at such high pressures as a result of the water already upon it that it will not deform appreciably with any addition to the system. Impervious bedrock will not deform directly as a result of water burden - it is already at pressures much higher than anything water could put on it (though water can make the bedrock less viscous if it is chemically incorporated into it. Which it does - thus the lower viscosity of deeper crustal and mantle material). Deep seated aquitards and aquicludes are likewise supported by pressures much higher than what water burden will generate at and around Earth's surface.

Not to mention, water evaporates constantly given appropriate temperatures and convection, whereas ice rarely if ever sublimates from solid to gas in nature.

Given the above principles, it is not possible anywhere on earth for there to be a water column high enough to plastically deform any kind of rock to the point where it will rebound isostatically.
---
It's easy to claim that a thing is self-evident when you've already convinced yourself that it is.
#33OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 1/2/2013 5:00:58 PM
From: Bananganator | #028
It's sad that your god wanted to kill people in the first place.


Yes it is sad. Even he felt sad that he had to kill them. He feels pain every time someone disobeys him, even, so how much more so must he feel when someone is unrepentantly, death-deservingly wicked!


From: Faust_8 | #025
Hint: that's what someone who refuses to back down needs, not someone who's actually correct. You don't need a fallback unless you've already failed.


So when someone says "I can't explain how it happens, but it happens", have they failed?
I'll just leave the big bang here...

I'm really failing to see how that means "the entire planet."


You're right, just because ice can push down CONTINENTS, doesn't mean it can push down SEABEDS.



From: hunter_gohan | #030
He's talking about the ice caps pushing the continents 'down'(away from the poles and towards the equator) while you're talking about water pushing 'down'(towards the center of the earth).


Is the weight of the ice caps on the poles affecting the shape of the earth? Yes? Then it would happen in any other place, given enough weight.

Unless the crust of the seabeds are suspiciously immune to being pushed down by weight.

wouldn't that also drag the continents down with them?


You know those visualizations of how gravity works? It's like that, a ball on a pillow.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#34OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 1/2/2013 5:01:02 PM
From: CuddleWithClaws | #031
which is already kept at such high pressures as a result of the water already upon it


You're already assuming the seabeds are at their current depth. Your rebuttal doesn't work.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#35JonWood007Posted 1/2/2013 5:10:21 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
From: JonWood007 | #020

Sounds like you're grasping at straws to equate that with creationism tbqh.


Well you're wrong because I'm not even a creationist.


Really? But I thought if you accepted the Bible you need to accept all of it. Do you cherry pick OW? Or do you throw it all out the window?
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#36OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 1/2/2013 5:37:46 PM(edited)
From: JonWood007 | #034
Really? But I thought if you accepted the Bible you need to accept all of it. Do you cherry pick OW? Or do you throw it all out the window?


>Implying the only internally consistent position to take is creationism.

We had a topic about that once.

I am accepting all of the bible, and I am not a creationist.
The trick is what you mean by "the bible"
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#37JonWood007Posted 1/2/2013 5:58:18 PM(edited)
So you ignore Genesis? Or do you only consider whatever parts you accept to be "the Bible"? Or do you see Genesis as "just a metaphor"? If you accept the Bible as a whole only as a metaphor, what does that say about your faith? Are you a fan of religion? Or an adherent? There are a lot of theological acrobatics you can use to dodge this bullet, but not many of them are convincing to me.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#38CuddleWithClawsPosted 1/2/2013 6:40:54 PM
You're already assuming the seabeds are at their current depth. Your rebuttal doesn't work.

Your entire premise doesn't work.

Oceanic crust may be at very high pressures because of the burden of water upon it (this is actually a fascinating subject in bathymetry), but it's not there because the water's forcing it down. It's there because it is denser than evolved continental crust. Thus, it remains at the bottom of crustal plates. I suggest you do some reading on the mechanical, physical, and chemical partitioning of Earth, as well as some basic plate tectonic theory.

There are no geologic terranes in existence that were formed purely by the seafloor springing up isostatically. You think there are? Fork over the sources.
---
It's easy to claim that a thing is self-evident when you've already convinced yourself that it is.
#39OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 1/2/2013 6:47:38 PM
From: JonWood007 | #036
So you ignore Genesis?


Yes, I'm ignoring the very source of the global flood, the thing that we're discussing, and that must be true before we can even discuss "where the water went"...

There are a lot of theological acrobatics you can use to dodge this bullet, but not many of them are convincing to me.


Then perhaps you should actually hear what I have to say before going off to count your chickens before they hatch.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#40OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 1/2/2013 10:10:37 PM
From: CuddleWithClaws | #037

There are no geologic terranes in existence that were formed purely by the seafloor springing up isostatically.


When did I ever say that?
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face