Is volcanism and the earth's surface radioactivity evidence of the Flood? yes or no.

[Idolater]

Does liquid (melted) rock (magma or lava) exist solely because of the Flood?
Are there radioactive elements at the earth's surface solely because of the Flood?

And also, as far as climate change goes, do you think the earth's climate pattern changed when it went from its largely green surface, 'pock marked' with large lakes but no seas, to 70% of the surface covered in ocean? I bet it did.

The idea as far as I understand it which is almost nil, is that the crust was a single contiguous object before the Flood, some mixture of higher density rock and lower density rock, all pressing down on a layer of water beneath it (contributing the pressure component needed to make the water "supercritical"). When the Flood occurred, the crust ruptured, and this initial break basically caused a 'chain reaction' where the entire crust collapsed all over the earth, turning all or a lot of it into rubble, and in all the rushing shooting water and all the cracking and disintegrating rock of the crust, things were pretty chaotic as we probably can't imagine, but in all this movement there were friction forces deep down, generating tons of heat between the earth's solid mantle and the crumbling and crumbled crust, which melted a lot of rock into lava or magma, and some quantity of this melted rock still exists under the current crust's arrangement, sometimes emitting as volcanism.

I know even less about radioactivity, so bear with me. Radioactive elements existed before the Flood but only under the earth's crust (or maybe at the bottom of it), and when the crust disintegrated during the Flood and churned all around, some of the previously buried material came to the surface, stayed there, and is still here now. Radium, radon, uranium, etc.

I don't know if the Flood explains radioactive isotopes found in most if not all chemical elements. (Such as carbon 14.)

 

[Right Divider]

Does liquid (melted) rock (magma or lava) exist solely because of the Flood?
Are there radioactive elements at the earth's surface solely because of the Flood?

And also, as far as climate change goes, do you think the earth's climate pattern changed when it went from its largely green surface, 'pock marked' with large lakes but no seas, to 70% of the surface covered in ocean? I bet it did.

The idea as far as I understand it which is almost nil, is that the crust was a single contiguous object before the Flood, some mixture of higher density rock and lower density rock, all pressing down on a layer of water beneath it (contributing the pressure component needed to make the water "supercritical"). When the Flood occurred, the crust ruptured, and this initial break basically caused a 'chain reaction' where the entire crust collapsed all over the earth, turning all or a lot of it into rubble, and in all the rushing shooting water and all the cracking and disintegrating rock of the crust, things were pretty chaotic as we probably can't imagine, but in all this movement there were friction forces deep down, generating tons of heat between the earth's solid mantle and the crumbling and crumbled crust, which melted a lot of rock into lava or magma, and some quantity of this melted rock still exists under the current crust's arrangement, sometimes emitting as volcanism.

I know even less about radioactivity, so bear with me. Radioactive elements existed before the Flood but only under the earth's crust (or maybe at the bottom of it), and when the crust disintegrated during the Flood and churned all around, some of the previously buried material came to the surface, stayed there, and is still here now. Radium, radon, uranium, etc.

I don't know if the Flood explains radioactive isotopes found in most if not all chemical elements. (Such as carbon 14.)

I really wish that you would take the time to read In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

It explains all of this in great detail.

"where the entire crust collapsed all over the earth, turning all or a lot of it into rubble"

No, the "entire crust" did not "collapse". It was split by the rupture. This did cause a lot of breakage at the edges, but not a massive "collapse" or "turning it all into rubble".

Why do you believe that "Radioactive elements existed before the Flood but only under the earth's crust"?

There is no evidence to support that idea. There is a lot of evidence to support the idea that the radioactive elements were created by the events associated with the flood. It's pretty well know that the vast majority of radioactivity on earth is in the crust. Even the atheist theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss admitted this in a conversation with Bob Enyart.

 

[Idolater]

I really wish that you would take the time to read In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

I explains all of this in great detail.

"where the entire crust collapsed all over the earth, turning all or a lot of it into rubble"

No, the "entire crust" did not "collapse". It was split by the rupture. This did cause a lot of breakage at the edges, but not a massive "collapse" or "turning it all into rubble".

OK. I was imagining something like this because of the continents, which are composed of less dense rock and obviously sit up higher than the rest of the crust does today. In order for all this crust of the continents to build up to an average elevation of just under 1km above sea level, something pretty dramatic must have happened, in order for the Flood to have been truly global then there must have been a time when the crust was much less variable in depth, unlike today where it varies anywhere from 7km thick to something like 20 km I think? It must have been a far narrower range in order for all the waters currently on the earth to have submerged the whole crust, during those 150 days.

Why do you believe that "Radioactive elements existed before the Flood but only under the earth's crust"?

There is evidence to support that idea. There is a lot of evidence to support the idea that the radioactive elements were created by the events associated with the flood. It's pretty well know that the vast majority of radioactivity on earth is in the crust. Even the atheist theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss admitted this in a conversation with Bob Enyart.

I'm guessing you meant there is "no" evidence to support my idea.

I'm very curious about the mechanism you express here, about how radioactive atoms were generated in the first place.

 

[Right Divider]

I'm guessing you meant there is "no" evidence to support my idea.

Yes, that was what I meant.

I'm very curious about the mechanism you express here, about how radioactive atoms were generated in the first place.

 

[Right Divider]

OK. I was imagining something like this because of the continents, which are composed of less dense rock and obviously sit up higher than the rest of the crust does today. In order for all this crust of the continents to build up to an average elevation of just under 1km above sea level, something pretty dramatic must have happened, in order for the Flood to have been truly global then there must have been a time when the crust was much less variable in depth, unlike today where it varies anywhere from 7km thick to something like 20 km I think? It must have been a far narrower range in order for all the waters currently on the earth to have submerged the whole crust, during those 150 days.

The crust is predominately granite (averaged about 60 miles thick before the flood). There also must have been some "dirt" on top of the crust for the "garden" to exist in Eden.

After the flood, there is a significant amount of sedimentary rock created by the events before and during the flood. This sedimentary rock lies mostly on top of the granite crust.

 

[Idolater]

The crust is predominately granite (averaged about 60 miles thick before the flood). There also must have been some "dirt" on top of the crust for the "garden" to exist in Eden.

After the flood, there is a significant amount of sedimentary rock created by the events before and during the flood. This sedimentary rock lies mostly on top of the granite crust.

OK so now I'm thinking (always problematic) that the crust before the Flood had all the 'lighter' (less dense) rock that constitutes the current continents already 'assembled' as the continents, but that during the Flood, when the fountains broke, the continents were still atop the subterranean waters (not 'floating' but they were 'sitting' on the waters while they were still down there) as they rushed out under all that pressure, and while this was occurring, the continents 'slipped' to their current locations. Obviously the intrinsic friction would be negligible even for whole continents to 'slip' around in this way, since they were 'sitting' on top of a fluid, with much lower viscosity than solid rock, so the only things that could stop the slipping would be other gigantic pieces of rock, either other continents, or other continent sized pieces of the heavier (more dense) rock, that today basically forms the seabed.

My only gap in that conception is the elevation of the continents compared with what the (perhaps 'relative') elevation must have been in order to be able to have the whole world submerged in water, and I'm thinking this has to do with your mentioning the 60 mile thick crust. Right now the crust is nowhere near as thick, even at Mt. Everest's summit, so what I'm guessing you're saying is that some (rather large) fraction of the crust has become part of the earth's mantle now? Such that what's 'missing' (into the mantle) explains how the variation in elevations we measure, with the crust being from 7km to something like 20 km thick now, as compared to it being a relatively less variable range from something just under to something just over 60 miles thick, is so different.

 

[Right Divider]

OK so now I'm thinking (always problematic) that the crust before the Flood had all the 'lighter' (less dense) rock that constitutes the current continents already 'assembled' as the continents, but that during the Flood, when the fountains broke, the continents were still atop the subterranean waters (not 'floating' but they were 'sitting' on the waters while they were still down there) as they rushed out under all that pressure, and while this was occurring, the continents 'slipped' to their current locations. Obviously the intrinsic friction would be negligible even for whole continents to 'slip' around in this way, since they were 'sitting' on top of a fluid, with much lower viscosity than solid rock, so the only things that could stop the slipping would be other gigantic pieces of rock, either other continents, or other continent sized pieces of the heavier (more dense) rock, that today basically forms the seabed.

You really, REALLY need to read In The Beginning.

All of your questions are answered there, completely and thoroughly.

The crust of the earth is the thick granite layer. The sedimentary rock is not really part of the crust, per se. It mostly sits on the crust since the flood. Much of that sediment is due to the processes before, during and after the flood. The hydro-plates moved very fast at one point and were stopped by sliding onto the mantle (which caused immense friction and created much magma).

My only gap in that conception is the elevation of the continents compared with what the (perhaps 'relative') elevation must have been in order to be able to have the whole world submerged in water, and I'm thinking this has to do with your mentioning the 60 mile thick crust. Right now the crust is nowhere near as thick, even at Mt. Everest's summit, so what I'm guessing you're saying is that some (rather large) fraction of the crust has become part of the earth's mantle now? Such that what's 'missing' (into the mantle) explains how the variation in elevations we measure, with the crust being from 7km to something like 20 km thick now, as compared to it being a relatively less variable range from something just under to something just over 60 miles thick, is so different.

The earth was much flatter before the compression event. The earth also shrunk a bit, which is why the year went from 360 days to ~364.25 days.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The earth was much flatter before the compression event.

"Smoother" might be a better word than "flatter."

 

[Right Divider]

"Smoother" might be a better word than "flatter."

Both

 

[Stripe]

It might help to first get a grasp on what gravity does to planets.

The stuff that happened to the crust was only the trigger for the really massive action.

 

[Idolater]

It might help to first get a grasp on what gravity does to planets.

The stuff that happened to the crust was only the trigger for the really massive action.

Preach.

 

[Stripe]

The planet's sphericity is due to gravity. The more mass a body has, the more it will work on itself to become spherical.

It is almost certain — assuming the truth of the Hydroplate theory — that the Earth started life pretty much cold all the way through.

When the crust was shoved around by the rupture phase, it made the planet significantly non-spherical. Gravity went to work on that imbalance, pushing mass down on one side (what became the Pacific basin) and pushing it up under the Atlantic.

The mass imbalance is because the Hydroplates slid from the Atlantic area toward the Pacific.

While the Hydroplate movement shoved masses around on the surface, the gravity redress worked directly through the planet along planes of least resistance.

When you rub your hands together, they get warm. When you press your hands together and rub, they get warmer faster. These observations are due to the effects of pressure and friction.

If you rub two rocks together, you might be able to start a campfire. When rocks move at the pressures found deep in the Earth, they don't get warm, they don't even melt. They vaporize.

Imagine scraping a brick across some concrete. Now imagine that it moved a fraction of a millimeter under extreme pressure.

No more brick.
No more concrete.
No more parking lot.

The core of the Earth is a great big ball of vaporized parking lots. Every time there is an earthquake today, it gets bigger.

Yip. That's bad.

You might call be a global warming extremist. :noid:

 

[Idolater]

The planet's sphericity is due to gravity. The more mass a body has, the more it will work on itself to become spherical.

It is almost certain — assuming the truth of the Hydroplate theory — that the Earth started life pretty much cold all the way through.

When the crust was shoved around by the rupture phase, it made the planet significantly non-spherical. Gravity went to work on that imbalance, pushing mass down on one side (what became the Pacific basin) and pushing it up under the Atlantic.

The mass imbalance is because the Hydroplates slid from the Atlantic area toward the Pacific.

While the Hydroplate movement shoved masses around on the surface, the gravity redress worked directly through the planet along planes of least resistance.

When you rub your hands together, they get warm. When you press your hands together and rub, they get warmer faster. These observations are due to the effects of pressure and friction.

If you rub two rocks together, you might be able to start a campfire. When rocks move at the pressures found deep in the Earth, they don't get warm, they don't even melt. They vaporize.

Imagine scraping a brick across some concrete. Now imagine that it moved a fraction of a millimeter under extreme pressure.

No more brick.
No more concrete.
No more parking lot.

The core of the Earth is a great big ball of vaporized parking lots. Every time there is an earthquake today, it gets bigger.

Yip. That's bad.

You might call be a global warming extremist. :noid:

Thank you. I've got some questions. If the earth was "pretty much cold all the way through" then the subterranean water couldn't have been supercritical, it couldn't even have been liquid, it must have been ice.

This is based on water phase diagrams.

And the idea that the subterranean water was beneath say 10 km of rock at roughly a specific gravity of three. If it was much more than 10 km doesn't really change anything from a phase diagram perspective, unless there's enough heat in the water, increasing its pressure all the way up to infinity is just going to continue to be solid ice conditions.

If it's ice of course our theory about the fountains breaking needs something more, it needs heat from somewhere.

So, in your understanding, did the heat come from the friction you mentioned above, or from somewhere else? I'm focusing on this part for now because if the water isn't supercritical then a big hunk of the theory is disabled or impotent. It's very important.

Thank you again Stripe.

 

[Right Divider]

Thank you. I've got some questions. If the earth was "pretty much cold all the way through" then the subterranean water couldn't have been supercritical, it couldn't even have been liquid, it must have been ice.

By "cold all the way through", I believe that he means not molten.

And the idea that the subterranean water was beneath say 10 km of rock at roughly a specific gravity of three.

The crust was more like 60 miles thick (which is a little under 100 km).

If it was much more than 10 km doesn't really change anything from a phase diagram perspective, unless there's enough heat in the water, increasing its pressure all the way up to infinity is just going to continue to be solid ice conditions.

Again, you really, REALLY need to read In The Beginning.

If it's ice of course our theory about the fountains breaking needs something more, it needs heat from somewhere.

It's all documented thoroughly in In The Beginning.

 

[Stripe]

I've got some questions. If the earth was "pretty much cold all the way through" then the subterranean water couldn't have been supercritical, it couldn't even have been liquid, it must have been ice.

There was a 100km slab of granite sitting on it that was pulled up and down twice a day by the moon.

I think it would have been at least mostly liquid.

 

[Right Divider]

There was a 100km slab of granite sitting on it that was pulled up and down twice a day by the moon.

I think it would have been at least mostly liquid.

Totally supercritical water.

 

[Stripe]

Totally supercritical water.

Not at the time I am referencing. The tidal pumping prior to the valve getting shut would have kept enough water liquid to pump it from below to supply the Earth each day.

It's possible that the "waters below" were frozen in places, probably near the poles of the time.

 

[Idolater]

There was a 100km slab of granite sitting on it that was pulled up and down twice a day by the moon.

I think it would have been at least mostly liquid.

I'm thinking . . . that antediluvian subterranean water basically would be liquid where the ocean is currently liquid, and ice where it's currently ice.

I think I really want to know what the north pole's seabed looks like.

 

[Stripe]

I'm thinking . . . that antediluvian subterranean water basically would be liquid where the ocean is currently liquid, and ice where it's currently ice.

That would be my guess.

But water does weird things in extreme situations.

I think I really want to know what the north pole's seabed looks like.

Don't bother looking where the pole is today.

 

[Idolater]

That would be my guess.

But water does weird things in extreme situations.

Don't bother looking where the pole is today.

OK, I'm thinking the north pole at the time would have been a seven million square km blanket of solid ice, 2km thick, underneath a seven million square km, 100 km thick blanket of granite (roughly circular, about 3000km diameter).

Its edges would have been assaulted by the rest of the wreckage and devastation from the breaking deep fountains, but toward its center I can't think that much would have changed, not right away, I guess except for all that drenching rain? But wouldn't it have been snow?

Bottom line, what are you saying? Instead of the north pole, where should we look to see the residual effect the Flood made at the north pole?