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

[The Phoenix]

Lava on other planets does not necessarily explain lava on earth.

But it does demonstrate that a flood is not necessary for a planet to have lava.

I believe in the flood so don't misunderstand me, but bad arguments are still bad arguments even if they are for good points.

 

[Right Divider]

But it does demonstrate that a flood is not necessary for a planet to have lava.

Indeed, but that is irrelevant to the origin of lava on earth.

I believe in the flood so don't misunderstand me, but bad arguments are still bad arguments even if they are for good points.

Indeed, you're making a bad argument.

 

[Stripe]

But it does demonstrate that a flood is not necessary for a planet to have lava.

I believe in the flood so don't misunderstand me, but bad arguments are still bad arguments even if they are for good points.

Actually, the flood is probably the reason there is lava on other heavenly bodies, most notably, the moon.

 

[Idolater]

Is there not liquid (melted) rock (magma or lava) on other planets too? Venus has some serious lava everywhere you look, meaning that deep heat from Venus's mantle and core can melt rocks and cause that magma to erupt. But I am sure there was no flood there.

Only question here is whether the fountains of the deep are a clue, or just poetry. The "hydroplate" theory is one idea based on the fountains of the deep being a real feature of the earth before the Flood.

Basically we don't have a "control" earth, so we can't do experimental science to determine whether the Flood really happened, all we have is this one earth, and it either endured the biblical Flood, or it didn't. No other option. If we had one "control" earth, and one earth we subjected to the Flood, then that would be experimental science, we could just look and see, are there any differences between these two planets, and what are they?

The hydroplate theory HPT suggests the earth's crust and mantle were qualitatively different before the Flood with the main differences being a layer of water beneath the earth's crust (the fountains of the great deep) and the constitution of the crust being more uniform before the Flood (today continental crust and oceanic crust are constituted differently wrt rock type).

This is all as far as I can tell; the above. JR and RD can correct me on any mistakes.

 

[JudgeRightly]

the constitution of the crust being more uniform before the Flood (today continental crust and oceanic crust are constituted differently wrt rock type).

What do you mean when you make a distinction between "continental crust" and "oceanic crust"? What, specifically, are you referring to when contrasting those two things?

This is all as far as I can tell; the above. JR and RD can correct me on any mistakes.

Ya know, you would have a much better understanding of the HPT WITHOUT having to ask us if you would just watch the videos Bryan Nickel made.

Here's the link to the playlist again:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpl6E8stJTiIi8wdLgYj1eXpp-4o1UUkZ

 

[Idolater]

What do you mean when you make a distinction between "continental crust" and "oceanic crust"? What, specifically, are you referring to when contrasting those two things?

Continental crust is less dense, oceanic crust is more dense.
Continental crust consists of the continents and the continental shelves, oceanic crust is everything else.

Ya know, you would have a much better understanding of the HPT WITHOUT having to ask us if you would just watch the videos Bryan Nickel made.

When I have time JR!

Here's the link to the playlist again:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpl6E8stJTiIi8wdLgYj1eXpp-4o1UUkZ

Thank you.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Continental crust is less dense, oceanic crust is more dense.
Continental crust consists of the continents and the continental shelves, oceanic crust is everything else.

By oceanic crust, are you referring to the crust in the Pacific ocean? Or the "crust" of the mid-atlantic ridge (which isn't crust at all)?

 

[Right Divider]

Only question here is whether the fountains of the deep are a clue, or just poetry. The "hydroplate" theory is one idea based on the fountains of the deep being a real feature of the earth before the Flood.

Basically we don't have a "control" earth, so we can't do experimental science to determine whether the Flood really happened, all we have is this one earth, and it either endured the biblical Flood, or it didn't. No other option. If we had one "control" earth, and one earth we subjected to the Flood, then that would be experimental science, we could just look and see, are there any differences between these two planets, and what are they?

The hydroplate theory HPT suggests the earth's crust and mantle were qualitatively different before the Flood with the main differences being a layer of water beneath the earth's crust (the fountains of the great deep) and the constitution of the crust being more uniform before the Flood (today continental crust and oceanic crust are constituted differently wrt rock type).

This is all as far as I can tell; the above. JR and RD can correct me on any mistakes.

I'm just not sure by what people are meaning by "ocean crust". I don't think that there is actually such a thing.

Most of the ocean floor is just the exposed mantle. Although, in the Pacific, the crust has collapsed and got covered by magma/lava. So even then there is a basaltic ocean floor.

 

[Stripe]

Only question here is whether the fountains of the deep are a clue, or just poetry.

They can be both, right?

 

[Idolater]

They can be both, right?

They can be real and poetry, but not real and "just poetry"

 

[Stripe]

Oh, good.

I've had many try to pass off nonsense such as: Genesis can't be an accurate description of history because it is poetry.

 

[Idolater]

I'm just not sure by what people are meaning by "ocean crust". I don't think that there is actually such a thing.

Most of the ocean floor is just the exposed mantle. Although, in the Pacific, the crust has collapsed and got cover by magma/lava. So even then there is a basaltic ocean floor.

Well, or there is a lot of missing crust. If the whole earth were covered in what is called today continental crust (less dense rock, constituting the continents and their shelves), but then some cataclysm caused most of it, perhaps from on one side of the planet in particular, then the remaining crust might have separated somewhere near it's middle from tension (rock is strong against compressive force but very weak in tension, twisting, bending, and shearing forces), and then drifted on its underlying hydroplate until the hydroplate all came out, at which point the continents would just grind to a halt wherever they happened to be, creating a lot of lava or magma in the halting process (all the momentum from the drifting continents has to go somewhere afterall, if they're just going to up and stop), earthquake activity, some of which might still be playing itself out even today, somewhere, maybe.

 

[Right Divider]

Well, or there is a lot of missing crust.

The only truly "missing crust" is that which was launched into space. The rest is still here in one form or another. Some was pushed up to form the high mountains; some was buried when the crust on the Pacific side collapsed.

If the whole earth were covered in what is called today continental crust (less dense rock, constituting the continents and their shelves), but then some cataclysm caused most of it, perhaps from on one side of the planet in particular, then the remaining crust might have separated somewhere near it's middle from tension (rock is strong against compressive force but very weak in tension, twisting, bending, and shearing forces), and then drifted on its underlying hydroplate until the hydroplate all came out, at which point the continents would just grind to a halt wherever they happened to be, creating a lot of lava or magma in the halting process (all the momentum from the drifting continents has to go somewhere afterall, if they're just going to up and stop), earthquake activity, some of which might still be playing itself out even today, somewhere, maybe.

Have you still not watched the videos by Bryan Nickel?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bryan+nickel+hydroplate+theory

 

[Idolater]

The only truly "missing crust" is that which was launched into space. The rest is still here in one form or another. Some was pushed up to form the high mountains; some was buried when the crust on the Pacific side collapsed.

Understood, that this is what HPT says. I'm saying, could be that basically what was pre-Flood Pangea (about 30% of the Earth's land) is all that's left today of the original Earth's crust. (That 70% of the Earth's original land is in outer space, or on the Moon, or Mars, or in the Asteroid Belt, etc.)

Have you still not watched the videos by Bryan Nickel?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bryan+nickel+hydroplate+theory

I did watch hours plural of Mr. Nickel's production, yes. Not the entire thing, but multiple hours of it. It raised way more questions than it answered.

Geology and paleontology deal with the evidence that's germane to the question of the Biblical Flood.

Look at this stuff:

List of places with columnar jointed volcanics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That stuff's everywhere. It's more geological evidence.

 

[JudgeRightly]

(That 70% of the Earth's original land is in outer space, or on the Moon, or Mars, or in the Asteroid Belt, etc.)

There's not enough debris in the solar system for it to be that high.

A while back I did some investigating about how much of earth's mass is in the asteroid belt and the TNOs. It came out to a very small percentage of earth's total mass before the flood (I can't remember if it was 3% or 0.3%, but it was a small number).

Most of Earth's crust is still on the earth.

 

[Idolater]

There's not enough debris in the solar system for it to be that high.

A while back I did some investigating about how much of earth's mass is in the asteroid belt and the TNOs. It came out to a very small percentage of earth's total mass before the flood (I can't remember if it was 3% or 0.3%, but it was a small number).

Most of Earth's crust is still on the earth.

But the crust in its entirety only makes up a very small fraction of the whole Earth's mass?

 

[JudgeRightly]

But the crust in its entirety only makes up a very small fraction of the whole Earth's mass?

Correct.

 

[Right Divider]

It is possible that a large portion of the earths crust was launched in to space.
I believe that Dr. Brown estimated that ~3.4% of the earths mass was launched in to space.
I'm not sure that it could be as much as 70%, but it could be close to that.

 

[Idolater]

It is possible that a large portion of the earths crust was launched in to space.
I believe that Dr. Brown estimated that ~3.4% of the earths mass was launched in to space.
I'm not sure that it could be as much as 70%, but it could be close to that.

I don't know what fraction of the whole Earth's mass the crust constitutes but I see on wiki where its volume is about 1% of the Earth's volume. Assuming uniform density the crust therefore would be 1% of the Earth's mass, but the crust is probably lighter in density than the mantle and core, so it would constitute something less than 1% of the Earth's mass.

So if 70% of the Earth's then crust was launched into space and didn't land on the Earth soon afterward, then it would only be something much less than 1% of the Earth's total mass lost, if 70% of the then crust left the planet.

I'm just wondering if perhaps all the continental crust except for Pangea left the planet at the Flood, followed by the remaining continents "sliding" to their current positions, on what remained of the hypothetical subterranean hydrosphere (until it basically all came up to the surface).

 

[Right Divider]

I don't know what fraction of the whole Earth's mass the crust constitutes but I see on wiki where its volume is about 1% of the Earth's volume. Assuming uniform density the crust therefore would be 1% of the Earth's mass, but the crust is probably lighter in density than the mantle and core, so it would constitute something less than 1% of the Earth's mass.

So if 70% of the Earth's then crust was launched into space and didn't land on the Earth soon afterward, then it would only be something much less than 1% of the Earth's total mass lost, if 70% of the then crust left the planet.

I'm just wondering if perhaps all the continental crust except for Pangea left the planet at the Flood, followed by the remaining continents "sliding" to their current positions, on what remained of the hypothetical subterranean hydrosphere (until it basically all came up to the surface).

Pangea is an idea based on evolutionists attempts to agree with some of the facts.

It's entirely possible that some of the mantle was also ejected into space. The mantle and the crust were both affected by the super critical water's erosion of them.

Also note that not all of the "subterranean hydrosphere" has come up to the surface. There are still detectable bodies of water under the crust in places like Tibet. This subterranean salt-water was also discovered by the "deep digs" in Russia and Germany.