In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood-The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview.

[RWNJ]

This is very interesting. It raises many questions about why the earth is the way it is. Questions that have baffled scientist for many years. But there is another theory that explains them.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Ice Age. An ice age implies extreme snowfall which, in turn, requires cold temperatures and heavy precipitation. Heavy precipitation can occur only if oceans are warm enough to produce heavy evaporation. How could warm oceans exist with cold atmospheric temperatures?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Ever heard of lake effect snow?

 

[watchingfromafar]

I believe the oceans were heated up by volcanic activity.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Ever heard of lake effect snow?

That only affects the immediate coast line and doesnt travel very far inland.

 

[Wuwei]

I looked at you reference and some references cited by it.
I'm sorry there is no compelling evidence that says the earth is a few thousand years old.

I had to laugh when I read this:

So what is the origin of earth’s radioactivity? It is a consequence of the global flood. ​

The author said all the heavy elements were made by the earth from lighter elements. I looked further into the "evidence" cited and found from the original article that it came from high energy plasma experiments that could produce trace quantities of elements, but certainly not the entire earth as the author implies.

There is compelling evidence the earth is around 4 billion years old. The article came nowhere near challenging that.

 

[RWNJ]

I looked at you reference and some references cited by it.
I'm sorry there is no compelling evidence that says the earth is a few thousand years old.

I had to laugh when I read this:

So what is the origin of earth’s radioactivity? It is a consequence of the global flood. ​

The author said all the heavy elements were made by the earth from lighter elements. I looked further into the "evidence" cited and found from the original article that it came from high energy plasma experiments that could produce trace quantities of elements, but certainly not the entire earth as the author implies.

There is compelling evidence the earth is around 4 billion years old. The article came nowhere near challenging that.

Then how did the heavier elements form? Let's dig a little deeper.

Nonscientists usually say that heavy elements formed when stars exploded as supernovas, but that is incorrect. It overlooks the special energy requirements for fusion, and the need for a vast production of neutrons.35 (Such a production process has never been observed.) Obviously, gigantic explosions are much more likely to scatter the lighter elements than to force them together, and the powerful electrical forces that oppose the merging of atomic nuclei become even stronger as nuclei become heavier. Finally, as explained in "Star Births? Stellar Evolution?" on page 38, stars would not form after a big bang.

And then there's this.
Star Births? Stellar Evolution? In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 61. Star Births? Stellar Evolution?

There is no evidence for stellar evolution and how the heaviest elements formed. The emperor has no clothes. Someone should tell him.

 

[WinterBorn]

I looked at you reference and some references cited by it.
I'm sorry there is no compelling evidence that says the earth is a few thousand years old.

I had to laugh when I read this:

So what is the origin of earth’s radioactivity? It is a consequence of the global flood. ​

The author said all the heavy elements were made by the earth from lighter elements. I looked further into the "evidence" cited and found from the original article that it came from high energy plasma experiments that could produce trace quantities of elements, but certainly not the entire earth as the author implies.

There is compelling evidence the earth is around 4 billion years old. The article came nowhere near challenging that.

Then how did the heavier elements form? Let's dig a little deeper.

Nonscientists usually say that heavy elements formed when stars exploded as supernovas, but that is incorrect. It overlooks the special energy requirements for fusion, and the need for a vast production of neutrons.35 (Such a production process has never been observed.) Obviously, gigantic explosions are much more likely to scatter the lighter elements than to force them together, and the powerful electrical forces that oppose the merging of atomic nuclei become even stronger as nuclei become heavier. Finally, as explained in "Star Births? Stellar Evolution?" on page 38, stars would not form after a big bang.

And then there's this.
Star Births? Stellar Evolution? In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 61. Star Births? Stellar Evolution?

There is no evidence for stellar evolution and how the heaviest elements formed. The emperor has no clothes. Someone should tell him.

The heavier elements can be formed by supernova explosions. Also by massive planets compressing mass.

As for the global flood, there is not enough water to cover the planet. Even if you melted the ice on both poles.

Also, there are records of civilizations in China and that region as far back as 4,000 years ago. You'd think they would have noticed a global flood.

 

[RWNJ]

Here's another question. From our observations of space, about one star, visible from earth, dies each year. If stars were evolving, shouldn't we also see stars being born? Going back to the 1960's we have photos of the night sky. We have not witnessed one single new star being formed. Almost 50 years, and not one single star born. Explain that.

 

[WinterBorn]

Here's another question. From our observations of space, about one star, visible from earth, dies each year. If stars were evolving, shouldn't we also see stars being born? Going back to the 1960's we have photos of the night sky. We have not witnessed one single new star being formed. Almost 50 years, and not one single star born. Explain that.

YOu claim that we have not seen a single star born is not accurate.

Here is one example: Astronomers Witness a Star Being Born

 

[watchingfromafar]

There is compelling evidence the earth is around 4 billion years old. The article came nowhere near challenging that.

There is also compelling evidence that humans have been around for only 200,000 years. And in that short period we have walked in the moon.

 

[cnm]

You know, OP, you aren't compelled to live up to your username, some licence is granted to deviate from it.

 

[Wuwei]

The heavier elements can be formed by supernova explosions. Also by massive planets compressing mass.

As for the global flood, there is not enough water to cover the planet. Even if you melted the ice on both poles.

Also, there are records of civilizations in China and that region as far back as 4,000 years ago. You'd think they would have noticed a global flood.

I agree that those are standard explanations, but I have not heard that massive planets can create heavier elements. Do you have a reference?

 

[RWNJ]

The heavier elements can be formed by supernova explosions. Also by massive planets compressing mass.

As for the global flood, there is not enough water to cover the planet. Even if you melted the ice on both poles.

Also, there are records of civilizations in China and that region as far back as 4,000 years ago. You'd think they would have noticed a global flood.

I agree that those are standard explanations, but I have not heard that massive planets can create heavier elements. Do you have a reference?

He may be wrong about that. I don't know enough to make an informed decision. However he did raise some valid questions about star formation, which scientists credit for heavy elements. Like how gravity cannot overcome the electrical charge and angular momentum of a dust cloud and form a star. I'm also waiting for someone to explain why we haven't seen one new star in the entire galaxy for over 50 years. Not a single one.

 

[Wuwei]

I looked at you reference and some references cited by it.
I'm sorry there is no compelling evidence that says the earth is a few thousand years old.

I had to laugh when I read this:

So what is the origin of earth’s radioactivity? It is a consequence of the global flood. ​

The author said all the heavy elements were made by the earth from lighter elements. I looked further into the "evidence" cited and found from the original article that it came from high energy plasma experiments that could produce trace quantities of elements, but certainly not the entire earth as the author implies.

There is compelling evidence the earth is around 4 billion years old. The article came nowhere near challenging that.

Then how did the heavier elements form? Let's dig a little deeper.

Nonscientists usually say that heavy elements formed when stars exploded as supernovas, but that is incorrect. It overlooks the special energy requirements for fusion, and the need for a vast production of neutrons.35 (Such a production process has never been observed.) Obviously, gigantic explosions are much more likely to scatter the lighter elements than to force them together, and the powerful electrical forces that oppose the merging of atomic nuclei become even stronger as nuclei become heavier. Finally, as explained in "Star Births? Stellar Evolution?" on page 38, stars would not form after a big bang.

And then there's this.
Star Births? Stellar Evolution? In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 61. Star Births? Stellar Evolution?

There is no evidence for stellar evolution and how the heaviest elements formed. The emperor has no clothes. Someone should tell him.

Most of what you posted is not in the general literature on stellar evolution. I tried looking up your reference on novas not being able to generate heavy elements, but the author is a science writer and I could not get the original source of his article.

The vast quantity of literature is contrary to your source, and I have no idea if the author of your source cherry picked, or misinterpreted what he found.

The author does not use the main principal of science since he assumes the conclusion, and then looks for supporting references, possibly out of context.

In short, your conclusion that the "emperor has no clothes" has not been established.

 

[RWNJ]

I looked at you reference and some references cited by it.
I'm sorry there is no compelling evidence that says the earth is a few thousand years old.

I had to laugh when I read this:

So what is the origin of earth’s radioactivity? It is a consequence of the global flood. ​

The author said all the heavy elements were made by the earth from lighter elements. I looked further into the "evidence" cited and found from the original article that it came from high energy plasma experiments that could produce trace quantities of elements, but certainly not the entire earth as the author implies.

There is compelling evidence the earth is around 4 billion years old. The article came nowhere near challenging that.

Then how did the heavier elements form? Let's dig a little deeper.

Nonscientists usually say that heavy elements formed when stars exploded as supernovas, but that is incorrect. It overlooks the special energy requirements for fusion, and the need for a vast production of neutrons.35 (Such a production process has never been observed.) Obviously, gigantic explosions are much more likely to scatter the lighter elements than to force them together, and the powerful electrical forces that oppose the merging of atomic nuclei become even stronger as nuclei become heavier. Finally, as explained in "Star Births? Stellar Evolution?" on page 38, stars would not form after a big bang.

And then there's this.
Star Births? Stellar Evolution? In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 61. Star Births? Stellar Evolution?

There is no evidence for stellar evolution and how the heaviest elements formed. The emperor has no clothes. Someone should tell him.

Most of what you posted is not in the general literature on stellar evolution. I tried looking up your reference on novas not being able to generate heavy elements, but the author is a science writer and I could not get the original source of his article.

The vast quantity of literature is contrary to your source, and I have no idea if the author of your source cherry picked, or misinterpreted what he found.

The author does not use the main principal of science since he assumes the conclusion, and then looks for supporting references, possibly out of context.

In short, your conclusion that the "emperor has no clothes" has not been established.

Then why haven't we seen any new stars? We see them die, but we have not seen a single one being born. Stellar formation is only a hypothesis. It doesn't even qualify as a theory because their is no direct evidence for it. Only supposition. And no new stars are being formed.

 

[Wuwei]

Here's another question. From our observations of space, about one star, visible from earth, dies each year. If stars were evolving, shouldn't we also see stars being born? Going back to the 1960's we have photos of the night sky. We have not witnessed one single new star being formed. Almost 50 years, and not one single star born. Explain that.

It is well known that stars no longer form in older galaxies such as the milky way. The material has already coalesced as much as it will. However there are younger galaxies which spectral data show that stellar genesis is running rampant.

We will probably never see a new star being formed because the process is millions of years. Stellar destruction is a matter of weeks or shorter.

 

[Wuwei]

YOu claim that we have not seen a single star born is not accurate.

Here is one example: Astronomers Witness a Star Being Born

Thank you. I stand corrected. It is rare to see stellar formation in our galaxy.

 

[RWNJ]

Here's another question. From our observations of space, about one star, visible from earth, dies each year. If stars were evolving, shouldn't we also see stars being born? Going back to the 1960's we have photos of the night sky. We have not witnessed one single new star being formed. Almost 50 years, and not one single star born. Explain that.

It is well known that stars no longer form in older galaxies such as the milky way. The material has already coalesced as much as it will. However there are younger galaxies which spectral data show that stellar genesis is running rampant.

We will probably never see a new star being formed because the process is millions of years. Stellar destruction is a matter of weeks or shorter.

Perhaps you did not understand. There has never been a new star observed where there wasn't one before. In all of the universe, there has not been a single one. Even when we look billions of years into the past, we cannot see a new star that wasn't there before. And that area of space is close to the beginning of the big bang. There should be all kinds of new stars being detected, yet we find none.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I am shitting myself I am laughing so loud!

There's no evidence for a world wide flood covering the mountain tops with water.
1. There's not nearly enough water on earth
2. No geological layer supporting this idea
3. No mass die off is spread throughout that layer to support that idea caused by world wide flood.
4. 4,000 or 5,000 years ago? Well, we have history from that time and entire civilizations were in place taking millions of people being alive on this planet. So if the world is only 6,000 years old and a great flood had wiped out all besides one family...well, it would only leave a bout a couple dozen generations to build massive civilizations. We all know that there were civilizations 7,000, 6,000, 5000, and 4,000 years ago!
5. Those civilizations had thousands of years of history! How do you rebuild after being kicked so hard in the ass?

This is just going into the broader facts of it.

It didn't fucking happen! Put down the bong!

 

[ScienceRocks]

One question that has annoyed me for years is not as obvious. Genesis 7:20 says that the waters submerged the world’s highest mountains under 15 cubits of water. That means that flood covered Mount Everest, which is 29,028 feet tall and getting a bit taller every day, with 22 feet of water.

So I decided to do that math. My math skills are not stellar, but I did a rough, back-of-the-envelope calculation anyway. I had to start out by assuming that the earth is a perfect sphere, it’s not, it’s a bit squished at the poles and bulges at the equator, but this is a fair assumption.

The volume of a sphere is easy to calculate: V = 4/3πr³

The earth has a radius of 3959 miles. Now we need to know the radius of the flood. That’s the earth radius, plus the height of Everest, plus 15 cubits (22ft). So 3959 miles + 29,028 ft +22 feet = 3959 miles + 29050 feet = 3959 miles + 5.5018939 miles = 3964.5018939 miles

If we plug those two radii in to our volume formula, we get the volumes:

259,923,241,564 miles³ for the volume of the earth.

261,008,408,332 miles³ for the volume of the earth at flood.

So, if we subtract the earth volume from the flood volume, we’ll get the volume of water required to fill that space. That’s how much it would need to rain. That turns out to be 1,085,166,768 miles³of rain.

Now, let’s cut that by 25% because land, mountains, etc. occupy some of that volume. All that space would not be filled with water. The 25% figure is generous since oceans, which by definition sit at sea level, cover 70% of the earth and the rest of the earth isn’t nearly as high as Everest. But let’s grant the creationist this small charity.

That means that there had to be 813,875,076 miles³ of rain for the biblical flood. To put that in perspective, the oceans have about 321,000,000 miles³ of water. All the water on earth only adds up to about 332,500,000 miles³.So for the biblical flood to have happened, the water on earth had to miraculously multiply by about 250%.
Let’s try to put that in another perspective. The Atlantic Ocean is about 80,000,000 miles³.

That means, there needed to be more water than could be contained by ten Atlantic Oceans to rain as much as the bible claims.


One more perspective. There are 5.9978178 x 10^-⁷ Olympic pools in a cubic mile. That means an Olympic pool is about 0.00000059978178 cubic miles. Divide that 813,875,076 miles³ by that decimal and you discover that, for the bible to be true, it would have to have rained the equivalent of about 1.35 QUADRILLION Olympic swimming pools.

This raises one final point, where did all that water go?

I’m beginning to doubt the veracity of the bible.

How much water would be needed for Noah’s Flood? – Andrew L. Seidel – Medium