TEs/OECs interpretation of The Flood

[Jorge]

As I heard Hugh Ross say once, "the scientific evidence for a young earth is only slightly weaker than the scientific evidence for a flat earth."

Hugh Ross capitulated to OEC (as a Progressive Creationist) long ago so that remark is hardly surprising.

I have a debate (on video) between Ross and Hovind where Ross got his butt handed to him on a silver platter. The typical errors of TEs/OECs are therein eloquently* expressed by Ross - *like putting lipstick on a pig.

All TEs/OECs partake of the same errors/heresies/blasphemies so to hear you, KB, promoting the same is as expected.

Jorge

[rogue06]

Hugh Ross capitulated to OEC (as a Progressive Creationist) long ago so that remark is hardly surprising.

I have a debate (on video) between Ross and Hovind where Ross got his butt handed to him on a silver platter. The typical errors of TEs/OECs are therein eloquently* expressed by Ross - *like putting lipstick on a pig.

Coming from someone who thinks he regularly serves the butts of those who disagree with him up on silver platters.

All TEs/OECs partake of the same errors/heresies/blasphemies so to hear you, KB, promoting the same is as expected.

Jorge

Reminiscent of your old thread "TAKE TWO: Can you be an evolutionist and a Christian?" where you proclaimed that everyone who isn't a YEC isn't a Christian

[TheLurch]

Errrrr ... good, I'm glad to hear it. Now go and enjoy your day, Lurch.

Jorge

Well, i have to admit that it's the most polite way i've ever seen you express that you're incapable of providing an argument.

[Kbertsche]

Hugh Ross capitulated to OEC (as a Progressive Creationist) long ago so that remark is hardly surprising.

I have a debate (on video) between Ross and Hovind where Ross got his butt handed to him on a silver platter. The typical errors of TEs/OECs are therein eloquently* expressed by Ross - *like putting lipstick on a pig.

All TEs/OECs partake of the same errors/heresies/blasphemies so to hear you, KB, promoting the same is as expected.

Jorge

I've seen the Ross/Hovind debate (the real, unedited one, which is distributed by RTB; NOT the edited version distributed by the YEC groups with lots of added YEC material attacking Hugh Ross). My impression was exactly the opposite of yours. It was like a college professor trying to talk with a grade-school student. Hovind came across as severely outgunned.

[oxmixmudd]

Most of your post was just more of your typical BS so I deleted over it. The above portion that I retained is to make a quick, very pertinent comment: It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a worthwhile discussion when intellectual integrity is absent from one side. This is the main reason why I regularly point out the lack of that integrity in you and in others here in the hope that it will cause a reformation.

I mean, if you're going to apply different standards (as you do), if you're going to redefine things (as you do), if you're going to reinterpret things (as you do), if you're going to obfuscate and distort (as you do), then whatever I say will not 'connect' -- which is exactly what happens every time I engage you in any discussion. Instead, 99.9% of the time you reject anything and everything sight unseen.

Then, when all of that that happens (as it does), it is Jorge that gets vilified as you often you (here again).
It's the kind of stuff that has to be seen to be believed and even then it's no easy task.
The only mystery remaining for me goes back to how you're able to sleep at night - Valium, maybe?
You are an extremely dishonest person, Jim. If you come to grips with that then perhaps there's hope.

Jorge

Just a bunch of ad hominem attacks on a person who is capable of discussing the scientific evidence from someone who can't.

I don't have to paint you as evil Jorge. You don't understand the science and avoid it like the plague. All you have to do to prove me wrong is go pick one of those so called evidences and start a discussion like Beagle has in his thread. Beagle has no problem showing the problems with these so called evidences. He just lays out the facts and down they go.

IF you had any case at all, that would be all you would need to do.

But you can't.

As I said. There is no scientific evidence that supports a global flood. The 'articles' your search referenced are NOT SCIENCE. And all that is needed to show they are not science is to discuss them.

Will you discuss these 'evidences' Jorge? Can you back up your claims with actual deeds? Can you make the case - can you answer the objections with data, with examples? Can you show the flaws in the logic Beagle or I or Rogue have used?

It you can, then that would be substance.

If all you can do is call us names and figuratively stomp your feet and throw a tantrum, then all you've done is show everyone reading you have nothing scientific with which to back up your claims.


Jim

[Jorge]

Coming from someone who thinks he regularly serves the butts of those who disagree with him up on silver platters

It would be nothing short of a miracle if you ever admitted as much. I'm certainly not holding my breath.

Reminiscent of your old thread "TAKE TWO: Can you be an evolutionist and a Christian?" where you proclaimed that everyone who isn't a YEC isn't a Christian

I have recently and more-than-adequately presented my case for that claim.
You appear to have added senility to your usual dishonesty.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Well, i have to admit that it's the most polite way i've ever seen you express that you're incapable of providing an argument.

At least try to display some measure of integrity as you depart. I mean, I am far more than just "capable" of providing an argument. But, WHAT FOR? Plato and Socrates combined could present the most logical, convincing argument in the universe but if it falls on deaf ears then it will all be wasted.

Here on TWeb I've faced relentless intellectual dishonesty where no evidence, no argument, nothing is ever accepted as even a possibility. Even worse, this is all done with dishonest tactics (semantic manipulations, distortions, re-interpretations, evasions, redirections and so on).

There is NO WAY POSSIBLE to make any scholarly progress under those conditions. If you yourself had any integrity then you would at least nod your head in agreement (I'm not expecting that you will). Then you end by saying that I am "incapable of providing an argument" --- a finale that goes towards proving my point.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I've seen the Ross/Hovind debate (the real, unedited one, which is distributed by RTB; NOT the edited version distributed by the YEC groups with lots of added YEC material attacking Hugh Ross). My impression was exactly the opposite of yours. It was like a college professor trying to talk with a grade-school student. Hovind came across as severely outgunned.

Given the way that you and other OECs/TEs interpret (spelled d-i-s-t-o-r-t) Scripture, I am not the least bit surprised that you would interpret that debate as you indicate above.

I've read lots of Hugh Ross's material and he is a hoot-n-howler! Just like all OECs/TEs, Hugh Ross has fabricated his own version of "christ", his own version of "genesis" and, with it, his own "christian" cult. God warned us of such "false teachers and false prophets" so I'm not shaken in any way. I do pity those that have been taken in, though.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Just a bunch of ad hominem attacks on a person who is capable of discussing the scientific evidence from someone who can't.

I don't have to paint you as evil Jorge. You don't understand the science and avoid it like the plague. All you have to do to prove me wrong is go pick one of those so called evidences and start a discussion like Beagle has in his thread. Beagle has no problem showing the problems with these so called evidences. He just lays out the facts and down they go.

IF you had any case at all, that would be all you would need to do.

But you can't.

As I said. There is no scientific evidence that supports a global flood. The 'articles' your search referenced are NOT SCIENCE. And all that is needed to show they are not science is to discuss them.

Will you discuss these 'evidences' Jorge? Can you back up your claims with actual deeds? Can you make the case - can you answer the objections with data, with examples? Can you show the flaws in the logic Beagle or I or Rogue have used?

It you can, then that would be substance.

If all you can do is call us names and figuratively stomp your feet and throw a tantrum, then all you've done is show everyone reading you have nothing scientific with which to back up your claims.


Jim

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ......................



Jorge

[TheLurch]

Ok, someone pick two random numbers between 1 and 20.

[logician bones]

Lurch:

We are so ludicrously short of enough water

The RS model actually explains the water amount, since the torn-off old oceanic plate causes the newly forming oceanic plates to float higher for a time, pushing the water up over the continents (in addition to the heat causing steam vents that would create clouds later raining).

If you think about it, the planet's surface is mostly water, and a lot of that is fairly deep, so water isn't a problem. It's the shape of the earth underneath it currently that's a problem, but the RS model appears to neatly explain that as well as an array of other features.

Even the old canopy theory tried to explain the water amount, although that would have been more of a land-conforming flood due to constant rainfall, so a whole year seems unlikely without leaving the oceans much higher than they are. And we have much evidence that the rapid tectonic motion did occur during the Flood, including a lot of oceanic plate subducted that is still detected, and should have all melted away if this happened slowly over millions of years.

that there would be no reason for said Buddhist to ever even consider it if it weren't for the holy book of a faith that he/she doesn't believe in.

Unless it happened, and eventually people do enough science to understand it -- but if indeed it did happen as described, and God told us about it because he knows about it, we would expect to have "inside info" that could speed us up on getting to the truth.

Actually come to think of it, you can get on the right track even without the Bible, since humans would have witnessed this and would as we observe pass down legends of it across cultures, usually distorted (whereas the Bible preserved the right dimensions for the Ark, the correct genetic lines, etc.). If you ignore the Bible but do pay attention to what ancient humans seem to think happened from what their ancestors told them, you could realize you should investigate ways the water is in fact enough.

under normal circumstances, nobody would ever consider the idea of a universal flood. It would not even enter a scientific discussion

This is actually a serious problem for your side, since we are paradoxically assured that if the evidence is as strong as the geologists say who have studied this issue openly and concluded the Bible is true, all geologists would allegedly easily accept it. Yet you're admitting here that they wouldn't. I think you're right about that. A catastrophe of this scale is difficult for humans to think of as happening, since we tend to have status quo bias. Especially DURING human population, since that would imply some kind of miraculous predictive ability (or at least weather / volcano forecasters' dreams come true of really advanced computers and sensing equipment!) to have somebody do something to prepare for the catastrophe and actually survive (including with land animals).

you could say that a miracle occurred, but then you're not doing science

It isn't that simple -- what is a miracle? It is an act by a being that exists upon the matter (and/or energy) of this universe (or any other universe but we care about the ones we could observe the effects of). You do a "miracle" everyday when you move around matter near you, such as typing on that device to send that post. Without you there, the device wouldn't have done that, nor would other things be moved around as you are moving them.

Assuming miracles as ad hoc patches just to make a conclusion work is bad science, though, yes -- but that isn't what we propose.




Roy:

Surely there would be even clearer traces of genetic bottlenecks in large animals

From what the account describes, not of the kind that is described for humans that we have found. Other evidence I wouldn't rule out, like I said, but with humans we were told to expect one major male line surviving from the prior genetic mutations in the Pre-Flood world, and up to three female lines. And that's what modern science found. This is a pattern that shows a bottleneck regardless of any dubious "dating" methods.

In the animals, though, we're told only that they are in pairs, and some in multiple pairs, with no easily discernable pattern like a difference between male and female.

I said more about this in my latest reply in Beagle's topic.

the change in decay rate is at most a few % even for extreme temperature differences

The problem with that is that the results vary based on other conditions -- we would need to conclusively rule out that those conditions occurred during the Flood in amounts that could increase the percentage enough. From what I've seen, there has been no such proof yet. Obviously this can't be universal, or the radiocarbon would speed up too (presumably the heat from the volcanic layers would spread into the sedimentary layers, right?). What we observe is contradictory "ages" from different methods -- exactly what we would expect if the current findings that conditions affect certain radioactive decay types differently from others was at play.

Keep in mind also that some of the aging could have occurred over the 1500 years prior in the mantle, and others may even have been sped up as well by the events of the creation week, depending on how that worked (unfortunately we don't have as clear an understanding of that than the Flood).

In some cases patterns of damage due to radioactivity show that the decay happened faster in situ, but in other cases where the only reason to assume the rock itself is that old is that both parent and daughter element are found, with the daughter in large amounts, it could be explained if much of the daughter element was already present prior to the rock's formation in higher amounts than at least the atheistic branch of the OE scientists are assuming (and the theistic branch may be accepting their conclusion without realizing this effect of bias).

in subaerial deposits the grain surfaces become frosted and pitted from the fast impacts

Yep, I suspected that was what you meant. Actually newer research has found that this can happen in water, and also happens during cementation. See more in Beagle's topic.

There are none of the seashell or coral fragments that are typically found in beach sand.

Expected since the evidence shows this region was deposited during the Flood, transported from a region more to the north, and it's well into the continent. While those can get to that spot earlier in the RS model when the ocean water is being pumped out onto the land from the coasts in, the transportation evidence shows that at the time of Coconino transportation the current was primarily inland to coast, presumably due to the rainfall having started at that point.

The ripple marks and cross-bedding in the planes match those of desert dunes

No they don't. This was the old assumption prior to actually comparing them to desert dunes versus large underwater sand waves. They match the latter, as do the footprints, not desert dunes.

replies and comments have highlighted alternative possibilities that the original researchers neglected. Also, even if the tracks were made by amphibians in shallow water that doesn't rescue the flood hypothesis since the tracks are not level (ever seen a sloping flood?), are in multiple strata and are in the middle of the supposed flood deposits.

Your "also" here implies that you had something else in mind with the "alternate possibilities" section. Could you be more specific?

To the other points, I'm not sure what you mean about the tracks not being level. The study showed that they consistently go uphill, and are angled as if the animals were fighting a current (matching experiments to that effect and not desert tracks), so if you mean either of those things this works against your view, not for it. The tracks also skip areas with no evidence (supposedly) of being eroded away in between (though I would think that would be the obvious theory to explain this bit away), consistent with being able to float higher at times in water.

The middle is of course expected since there are tracks here of inland creatures!

'index fossils') that ONLY occur in very limited ranges of sediment and always in a specific order bottom to top

The main issue is that index fossils are determined by what is found and fossils that are found in multiple layers are simply said not to be index fossils. And creationists have pointed to many examples of fossils found in multiple layers. So, the index fossil argument amounts to "show me the evidence except whatever evidence you show me" -- an ever-moving goalpost.

There's also the "living fossils" missing from layers above where they're found, though the sea examples could only be fossilized on present land when it's underwater in your worldview, so some can be explained.

This is a major problem for flood geology. I have a thread here on the Chesapeake Bay Impact. Feel free to look it over. See if some of the issues it presents make any sense in a flood scenario.

Thanks for the interesting link. I've gone through the first post at time of writing this. You appear to prove conclusively that it is an asteroid impact, although I wouldn't know for sure about the exact velocities needed. From what you said just in the first post, this would be evidence for the impact initiation version of the Flood, consistent with the evidence for a single system-wide event on other solar bodies (such as perhaps the breaking apart of a planet between Mars and Jupiter orbits also explaining that asteroid belt where the material's direction didn't fall out of orbit enough). And technically it could work for the odd variant that has both events happening at the same time but without natural causal relation. (And I suppose we couldn't rule out a third possibility of some other cause leading to both at the same time, but no idea what that could be.)

So in that sense it looks like evidence against any other view of the Flood, but at least from what's in the first post, not evidence against the Flood. Besides, we would want to look for some kind of naturalistic cause for the Flood; the Bible does not clearly state that its cause was miraculous (unlike for example the animal pairs chosen to go on the Ark, or the prophecy of the Flood that lead to the building of the ark) -- at least as one possibility.

after the sediments were laid down

Pretty sure it has to be in-between, since it's near the coast and yet we still see it. Remember the initial recession stage would cause sheet erosion destroying the topmost deposition (inland too, to an extent, but especially at the coasts). And your diagram showed something atop the crater-affected layers which may include later Flood deposition (unsure offhand).

To your list of effects, switching to list style for now:

Tidal waves -- this isn't the only thing that causes those problems, but tidal waves actually tend to be barely noticeable in deep water. It's when they approach land that they become steep. Of course, I am saying for other reasons Noah was probably inland quite a ways, and if this initiated the Flood, especially with an impact in the single ocean triggering the RS, this could add to the already-expected massive uprushing current -- if this could (I don't know) hit the Ark before it is lifted by gentler water (from both later rainfall and from the pump-action rising slowing down later), then it could possibly damage it enough to make it not possible to survive the year (or just kill from the impact kinetic energy of crashing into hills or whatever).

The description in the account seems to fit both the fountain effects and the floodgate effects happening at roughly the same time from Noah's POV, though that opens up all the previously mentioned issues about POV. But if that's the right interpretation, it would be consistent with his being far enough inland to have the initial waves from both causes not reach him.

Obviously, exact placement of the Ark was always a sticky issue in any version of the global Flood view, even just from pure rainfall versions, since there would have to be a time when it could be mobile sideways and yet isn't high enough up to dodge hills in the area (2012... AHEM). Noah could have mitigated that intentionally (or accidentally on his part but intentionally by God) by building it in a plains area, especially one already near a lake, where he might for example be more likely to find boatbuilders to hire. (I've also argued that he may have built it away from population centers to have more trees right next to the build site... which makes sense if pre-Flood population tended to be hilltop as some post-Flood civilization was as added defense against more dangerous creatures and each other, given the violence described. This also hampers the "visible witness" argument.)

Stress issues -- Well, keep in mind the account confirms that the ark had to deal with these for a time, whatever the causes. The shape has been shown to be ideal for wave stress, and the other effects are known to be mitigated by ancient building techniques.

Climate -- I think the main issues are here, yes. But a lot here depends on the Flood model. Under the RS theory, we already expect a climate issue (matching observations) with the temporarily warmer oceans causing a period of more intense storm activity (we see this from consistent surface erosion of many of what would be islands at the time at the same level below today's ocean surface, as well as various effects on today's continental land and larger islands), and of course the ice age (due to the atmospheric effects of more cloud cover -- note that ice buildup is why the ocean level would be lower for a time causing the island surface erosion).

The question is if the impacts observed would actually cause effects enough to add to this that would not be "cleaned" by the intense steam, global water overflow, and global rainfall during the Flood itself. It seems highly unlikely that they would not be seriously hampered by these effects; the typical OE assumption of the effects is without the context of such a Flood, so it would be easy for them to miss this and just blindly import their expected effects on top of the Flood without considering how the Flood would alter it.

Deadly proximity -- Well, again, we've had some strikes that destroy areas in modern times, but how widespread are the effects? I don't recall accounts offhand of wide-ranging deaths from aftereffects. So, unless these are limited only to the sizes seen in the Flood, and again wouldn't be significantly stopped by the Flood itself, this won't get us anywhere (though obviously the direct destruction would scale up). Another problem with this argument is we know of no way to determine where on the original supercontinent Noah started out from.

Ice age versus farming -- well, unless snowball Earth actually happened, Noah's landing in Mesopotamia already explains that issue.

Not sure what you mean about large scars reburied. Could you clarify?

Large vs. small. This is a more complicated one. One factor is that normal statistics would seem to predict what you describe (for the most part); if smaller ones are obscured at the same statistical ranges as larger ones, they're more likely to be completely eroded away (or the ones that aren't wouldn't be noticed today as easily), and only the ones that are in areas and times more akin to the footprint preservation conditions are left, but larger ones would be less likely to escape such erosion. And larger ones will automatically have more trouble escaping erosion as they can't "hide" in smaller regions left alone by the currents and so forth -- especially if they themselves will cause more turbulence! Another issue is that creationists have proposed that many larger craters are being misinterpreted and not yet researched enough to see if they are that due to OE bias. We may have better preserved large ones.

Another factor is the initiation event theory. It would presumably take an enormous impact to trigger oceanic plate subduction! Since the evidence on other bodies shows mostly a single momentary event, one side of each body takes the biggest hits, including Earth. Presumably the land side was aimed away at the time of that impact. While some larger pieces could still come down later (and some smaller ones may have been accelerated faster due to the breakup so would have been hitting earlier too and were erased by the Flood onset), most of the later ones after the one or ones that triggered the subduction would be expected to be smaller and thus happen at gentler times during the Flood. (Or, again, have a greater statistical likelihood of hitting areas that were at the times they were.)

Since it is believed the K-T boundary producing impact would have led to a 95% extinction level event, and there are even larger impacts, think about what it would mean to have that and two even larger impacts

ox, you seem to be confirming that you're making the very mistake I pointed out above here -- that you're importing the side effects from your own view uncritically. Those conclusions are reached in your view because it does not have a global Flood! That's circular reasoning...



Jorge:

Let me add that you seem to have no problems with the 'miracles' that Materialism brings into "science".

I kind of agree with this argument (referring to the ad hoc assumptions like inflation added to prop up things like the Big Bang despite contrary evidence), but I'm not sure about how you're using it. People on our side have called those "secular miracles", but how literally do they intend it? (How literally do you intend it?) It makes sense that an atheist or a deist would see physics causes outside normal observation as on the table (describable as "secular miracles") and not ones caused by God.

Where I agree is that it shows inconsistency with forensics science, anthropology, etc. where the same process of concluding causes from observed effects is used with intelligence ON the table; it shows an anti-theistic (or at least a deistic) bias that is not rational.

IOW, it's not the 'miracles' that bother you and those like-minded, it's the source of the 'miracles' that bothers you.

Yes, but your focusing on "miracles" here is equivocation, since they're clearly not using the same definition of it that those on our side do when they say "secular miracles"; they're clearly using the more common definition of an act by an intelligence.



Jorge... Yes, ox is going way, way too far in saying there's no evidence, but most of his reactions to your search results argument look honest and natural to me. I had some of the same reactions, and I have no reason from bias to do that. It's difficult to see why you didn't simply admit you misquoted your search. You should expect, if that's how you're going to present your argument, that they would try to "replicate your results" if you'll pardon the allusion. That's actually what they should do. Noble Bereans, right? And BTW, you're giving the impression that you think Christians aren't supposed to admit when we're wrong (because it is clearly proven you were wrong on that detail). But we are -- more than anybody else if anything.

I'll be honest, though -- given the amount of study I've done from both sides on this issue, ox's original claim had me practically ROFLing too. :P But I don't blame him for that assumption -- it's what he's been indoctrinated to believe. You seem to feel like if somebody parrots what they've been taught it proves they're the devil incarnate or something. He isn't evil because he repeated a popular falsehood -- he's misled.

No idea if he's willing to reconsider, though. You seem to be saying you've tried and given up on him, but frankly from the perspective of somebody walking into your discussion later, I'm not seeing much sign that you have actually made good arguments. Your approach looks more counterproductive than anything. And in my experience when you're dealing with somebody like that (whether he or others here are like that or not) it's crucial that you play to the audience, as it were, and take it as opportunities to continue to show the resounding evidence and where possible proof for others reading along who might not have seen what came before. If you do that, and you're right about him, he'll eventually learn to shut up (or try to distract from the real issues, which you can also point out) because he's just helping you further your cause.

(Sorry to keep using you as the example, ox... I mean it only as a hypothetical example. :P You seem fairly reasonable to me so far. To an extent...)

Here on TWeb I've faced relentless intellectual dishonesty where no evidence, no argument, nothing is ever accepted as even a possibility.

Well, that's something you can use -- but simply claiming that it's the case isn't how to do it. Focus on showing WHY they're wrong. (And make sure you aren't first, if you can!) I keep getting the impression that you think that this is reason for you to NOT point to the evidence and defeat their arguments and questions (some of which I find to be reasonable... but even the unreasonable ones can be persuasive to others reading along and may need nuked). But this is not how I see biblical takedowns working -- they can get quite "harsh" but they do it while proving from the evidence that their case is correct.

[TheLurch]

I'll just take the bits addressed to me

The RS model actually explains the water amount, since the torn-off old oceanic plate causes the newly forming oceanic plates to float higher for a time, pushing the water up over the continents (in addition to the heat causing steam vents that would create clouds later raining).

What is the RS model, and how in the world does it create radical changes in the internal volume of the Earth? Better yet, how does it create them in the matter of days?

If you think about it, the planet's surface is mostly water, and a lot of that is fairly deep, so water isn't a problem. It's the shape of the earth underneath it currently that's a problem, but the RS model appears to neatly explain that as well as an array of other features.

No process makes significant, rapid, global changes to the interior of the earth other than a catastrophic impact. There's simply not enough energy available to do this.

And we have much evidence that the rapid tectonic motion did occur during the Flood, including a lot of oceanic plate subducted that is still detected, and should have all melted away if this happened slowly over millions of years.

No, we do not have evidence of rapid tectonic motion - and it simply doesn't make sense energetically. Remnants of plates are expected to persist for millions of years. Rock doesn't transmit heat all that well, and a plate is a huge volume of rock. There's no way it could equilibrate to different temperatures in anything but millions of years.

If you ignore the Bible but do pay attention to what ancient humans seem to think happened from what their ancestors told them, you could realize you should investigate ways the water is in fact enough.

Ancient humans say all sorts of crazy things, many of them inconsistent with each other. I'll take geological evidence, thanks. And there's no geological evidence of a global flood.

This is actually a serious problem for your side, since we are paradoxically assured that if the evidence is as strong as the geologists say who have studied this issue openly and concluded the Bible is true, all geologists would allegedly easily accept it. Yet you're admitting here that they wouldn't.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm recognizing the complete absence of evidence that indicates a global flood happened, and the complete absence of plausible mechanisms that could trigger such an event. Given these two, there is no reason to scientifically consider the idea. Yes, there are some with geological training that say otherwise, but only because they have a pre-commitment to do so. In some cases, merely as a precondition for getting their jobs, as others have pointed out. Pretty much every single geologist operating at a theologically neutral institution would point to the evidence that tells you that nothing like this has or even could possibly occur.

You do a "miracle" everyday when you move around matter near you, such as typing on that device to send that post. Without you there, the device wouldn't have done that, nor would other things be moved around as you are moving them.

No, i don't. I don't know about you, but i obey all sorts of laws - physics, thermodynamics, etc.

Assuming miracles as ad hoc patches just to make a conclusion work is bad science, though, yes -- but that isn't what we propose

It is precisely what you propose. Where did the energy required to rearrange the interior of the Earth come from? Where did it go afterwards? A miracle is the only possible option for this.

[TheLurch]

Actually, let's nail down the absurdity here. We've got to empty out pretty much all of the oceans onto the land to have any hope of getting this to work. It won't work, of course, because at a higher altitude, the water would have to occupy a greater volume to still cover a sphere's surface. But whatever, let's guesstimate this.

The average depth of the Atlantic is 3.8km. We'll call that 4km. That's how much we need to shift the bottom of the ocean.

How much material are we shifting? The Atlantic's width varies from 2,800 km to 6,400 km. We'll be exceedingly generous and call that 4,000 km. Reykjavik to Puntas Arenas should be a decent estimate of north-south distance; that's 13,721 km. We'll again be generous and go with 13,000 km. So that's 52,000,000 square km. The thickness of the earth's crust varies from 30-50km; we'll go with 40km. That brings us to a volume of 2,080,000,000 cubic kilometers. Basalts have a density of about 3,000 kg per cubic meter (source: https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/ubcgif/iag/f...es/density.htm). That's 3 x 10^12 kg for each cubic kilometer.

Multiply that by the 2 x 10^9 cubic kilometers we have, and you get 6 x 10^21 kg of ocean crust you have to shift. And you have to shift that 4km. Moving 1 kg 1 meter is 9.8 Joules - call it 10. So, 4,000 meters, all those kg, 10 Joules, and you come up with 2.4 x 10^25 Joules.

What is that? Well, It's 10% of the sun's entire output for a second. But that's difficult to comprehend too, so let's try putting it a different way. 10^25 Joules appears to be 2,390,057,361 megatons. That gets us 5.7 billion megatons. Each megaton represents 66.7 atomic bombs of the size of the one used on Hiroshima. So, that's the equivalent of setting off 380 billion atomic bombs.

And that's just to handle the Atlantic. And just to handle the rock underneath it - you've gotta lift all the water, too.

[TheLurch]

Thinking about it, this should be relatively easy. The volume of the Atlantic is 354,700,000 cubic km. Each of those is 10^12 kg. That's another 10^16 Joules. So, a rounding error compared to moving all the rock. The Atlantic, however, is only 25% of the world's oceans by volume. So we can multiply the above figure by 4 to get to 1.5 trillion atomic bombs worth of energy involved.

[TheLurch]

Two last things, then i swear i'm done for now.

I recalled that I ballparked the amount of water that would be needed to cover the surface of the planet. I came up with 3.4 billion cubic km. The total volume of the oceans, however, is only 1.4 billion cubic km. So no, you don't have the water.

I also realized that we do have a model for shifting some of the earth's crust to different elevations: the great Japanese earthquake of 2011. All that mess was created by a vertical displacement of... wait for it... 1.69m. (source: http://www.upc.edu/saladepremsa/al-d...e-of-geomatics). Now, extrapolate that to changing things by four meters, and, well... I think it's safe to say Noah's ark would be shaken to bits before the water could get to it.