The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Sorry not to have posted for a while — been away for a few days. It's a pleasure talking to you, too, Bert!

I'm replying in haste here, a bit, but my main thought on the mountain-raising question is that the energies involved in moving that volume of rock against gravity are colossal. The current plate tectonic model accounts for (most) earthquakes as the by-products of orogenesis over a multi-million year time scale, as moving blocks of rock catch on each other as stress builds up, and then slip a bit, releasing the stress for a while. Unless there's something fundamentally wrong with this picture, packing what plate tectonics would see as several million years' worth of sticking and slipping into a much shorter time span would be truly catastrophic. If human history had somehow managed to carry on through such an event, it would surely have merited more than a cryptic by-line or two.
 
Plate tectonics has developed since Patten's day, incidentally; it's kind of son-of-continental-drift, with the mechanistic blanks largely filled in (though still under active debate in parts).

Falustich's work sounds interesting!

Hello,

Yes. It would be difficult - - - to separate the continents - - and raise the mountains, and yes, it would be staggering.

But - - - I truly do not know..

Which in part - - would require OUTSIDE interference. A Meteor at least.. but - -

Have we not been hit by Meteors?

And is late here. Will get back. Floods around here.

Bert

I visited Meteor Crater in Arizona in 1970. Evidence has been found of bigger ones. They happen occasionally (on a geological time scale.)

_________________
John

My soul looks back in wonder at how I got over

We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it comes

On the evidence of nearby planets, really big meteor strikes may throw up a mountainous ring around the crater, and a central peak as well. The mountains are made of a mixture of rock fragments and solidified melt. This isn't the pattern of terrestrial mountain ranges, though. The rocks here are typically concertina-folded on a large scale, rather than fractured/melted, and that seems to make sense if they've been subject to steady huge pressure over very considerable time, rather than sudden impact. And the geographical shape of mountain ranges here, and the ongoing earthquakes associated with many of them, fit plate tectonics better than they fit meteor impacts.



Independent of these thoughts, there's the whole business of geological dating — different mountain ranges appear to have formed at very different times.

Hello,

The Board has been quite - - cooperative with us, as we have chased down many different threads - - all of which are related to the Canopy Theory.

In your last posting, you seemed to be a bit bothered by the evidence of Mountains/etc., not truly supporting an ARK/World Wide Flood scenario.

To me - - it has/was somewhat been a struggle to adjust away from the "Scientific" view of a Long Creation - - but - - on the other hand - - the "Scientific" view, in it's current state - - was obviously flawed. It had fossils where they should NOT be - - and Salt domes where they could NOT be, etc., etc. So I lost nothing - - when I went towards a full belief in the Bible.

BUT - - as you seem to have trouble with Mountains the most - - would you like to read about the Pillars of Hercules?
Ha. They do not call them that, but.... http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... view3.html

Above link shows - - where the energy might come from for a QUICK formation of Mountains.

Also - - I find that giving this link is appropriate at this time, because - - - the levees along the Missouri river are breaking!

Bert

Fossils where they should not be? Salt domes where they could not be? Where's that, then?

Thanks for the link about hydroplate theory. I guess that ought to have a thread to itself — it's not quite the same thing as canopy theory! So here it is: Hydroplate Theory.

Hope you and yours manage to keep above water, Bert. I'll be praying for you!

I'd like to point out as gently as possible, here, too, that calling the acceptance of one interpretation of a few bible passages "full belief in the bible" is a bit naughty. Sounds like someone else's rhetorical trick to me, Bert...

Hello Andyjonessz,

Ha. Relative to your last comment - Oh well? I suppose it was late at night when I wrote that Naughty phrase, I suppose. In a sense though - - it needed to be said.

And Yes, I agree. The Hydro-plate theory - - could use its own link - yet - - it is related. It explains (suspect science, possibly?) but - - it does explain where the water to flood the world came from - - and it explains how Salt domes formed. (among other things). In brief - it says that there were caverns of water 10 miles under ground - under HUGE pressure and heat, so - - the water could absorb extra salt and lime. When the crust then broke (asteroid or comet, perhaps? during Noah's time) - - then the water jetted into the atmosphere, releasing huge pressure - and raining back - leaving much of the dissolved salt behind - - -. Evidence of this, is the HUGE salt domes we find today - and or Mountains formed with OLD rocks on top of YOUNGer rocks - - and fossils left were they should NOT be.

Now I do not say that this HYDRO-PLATE theory is complete. I have however thought, for sometime - - that it could be another part of the riddle we are left with. Hale-Bopp? Could be. Might not be. But - - timing says it may have played a part.

But - - company just walked in. Must go.

Bert

Ha right back at you, buddy! I didn't mean 'naughty' in the sense of bending a board rule, or something, I meant 'naughty' in the sense of being inaccurate, misconceived, and misleading. It's the sort of thing people say to bolster up arguments that don't really work, by making them (the arguments) sound far holier than they are. From my point of view, none of this is about whether to believe the bible or not; it's about what the bible actually means by what it says.

How's the levee situation, Bert? Hope your feet are keeping dry!

I've pretty much concluded that Walt Brown's book is a fairy story, btw — every bit I've looked at so far has been fairly fundamentally flawed. (See Hydroplate Theory.) There's more I could add, but if no-one wants to stick up for him, there may not be much point...

Hello AndyJonezz

Feet are barely dry, but are dry. I spent a lot of this week, filling sandbags. Now THERE is a job you do NOT want to do, when the sun is out and it is 100 degrees. Ha. I think, at the moment - - even I do not wish to talk a lot about "Flooding". Serves no real purpose - - - as - - - I expect that what we are looking at is some combination of Hydro-plates, and canopy and - - possibly comet and or etc.. i.e. and unusual combination of events.

Proving any of this though - - - - is quite problematic. In a sense - - is like when one speculates on an incoming Comet. People complain - - and say the comet would burn up/not get in! Yet Comet is made of water.... so - - is pretty hard to burn up a comet... ha.

But to PROVE there were Hydroplanes - - when they no longer exist - or to prove a comet had an influence, or to prove it was cloudy all the time back then - - - is of course impossible. The comet did not leave permanent tracks. The fountains of the deep, have been broken. The Canopy no longer exists... so - - .....

Bert

Glad you're OK, Bert! From the very limited experience I have of shifting quantities of sand, I can dimly imagine the kind of time you've been having. Rather you than me, mate...

Water can't burn, and that's a fact. But ice can vaporise, which I guess is what peple mean when they talk about comets "burning up" on entering the atmosphere. And things that happen in the past do leave marks on the present, so we're not completely in the dark about the planet's history.

Ha.
I read your last comment, and it made me laugh.



Humm. When Water vaporizes - - - - does it ever then turn to rain?

ha.

Bert