Reasons to Believe - RTB old earth

[jriccitelli]

I guess this question would be for Darin, (That analysis blows apart the Brown theory for sure. Those equations certainly frightened me) And (as Homer and Alastair asked) my father used to always ask me where all the water of the flood came and went?

I have not given this too much thought but could not God have combined oxygen and hydrogen (from space) then changed it back into hydrogen and oxygen?

I know we can do this, I can do it with a battery. And with large amounts of energy this is done to make fuel cells. Is it not feasable, since it seems pretty simple to do. Thats all I have considered on this answer.

[darinhouston]

Modeling something like this would be interesting -- it's above my abilities, but I'd love to read someone else's model -- from a lay perspective it strikes me that electrolysis of that sort would take so much energy that on the order of a global flood the reaction itself (not to mention where would such energy come from) might destroy the planet -- Further, the effect of the hydrogen gas by-product turning the planet into a bomb might even change orbits of other planets. I presume something like a photosynthetic process could work a little slower and have less dynamic effects, but again that gets to an old earth theory and you'd have to show the catalytic components existing in sufficient quantities on earth and distributed in the flood waters to cause such an effect. Of course, that's a VERY lay thought on my part.

As for gases escaping, again even if you prevent the explosion I'm not sure the atmosphere permits such gas exchange without a dramatic event disrupting the atmosphere. Before the atmosphere reached its present state, I understand there were likely escape events, but (another evidence of the long age of the earth) after a while the molecular weights of the gases have formed fairly stable atmospheric layers.

[darinhouston]

Modeling something like this would be interesting -- it's above my abilities, but I'd love to read someone else's model -- from a lay perspective it strikes me that electrolysis of that sort would take so much energy that on the order of a global flood the reaction itself (not to mention where would such energy come from) might destroy the planet -- Further, the effect of the hydrogen gas by-product turning the planet into a bomb might even change orbits of other planets. I presume something like a photosynthetic process could work a little slower and have less dynamic effects, but again that gets to an old earth theory and you'd have to show the catalytic components existing in sufficient quantities on earth and distributed in the flood waters to cause such an effect. Of course, that's a VERY lay thought on my part.

As for gases escaping, again even if you prevent the explosion I'm not sure the atmosphere permits such gas exchange without a dramatic event disrupting the atmosphere. Before the atmosphere reached its present state, I understand there were likely escape events, but (another evidence of the long age of the earth) after a while the molecular weights of the gases have formed fairly stable atmospheric layers.

Of course, God could have done something like that using processes we're unaware of, but that's a never-ending "God in the gaps" sort of answer.

[Apollos]

I wish I had the tools and training to analyze the post, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it has been blown apart. People tend to write like this in response to the position of others irrespective of the merits, and I note that Couchman does not seem to refer to himself as having a PhD, and I also note that Prof. Brock of Wheaton University, a professor of geology, has endorsed it, so I very much doubt it can be ripped to shreds so easily.

[darinhouston]

(That analysis blows apart the Brown theory for sure. Those equations certainly frightened me) And (as Homer and Alastair asked) my father used to always ask me where all the water of the flood came and went?

I wish I had the tools and training to analyze the post, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it has been blown apart. People tend to write like this in response to the position of others irrespective of the merits, and I note that Couchman does not seem to refer to himself as having a PhD, and I also note that Prof. Brock of Wheaton University, a professor of geology, has endorsed it, so I very much doubt it can be ripped to shreds so easily.

PhD or professor or not, my experience is that academia in general and PhDs in particular are more prone to a biased direction with blinders on than those I have met in industry. Industrial scientists are much more pragmatic and results-oriented. Professors tend to have a bias towards a position of study or pet theory. It was not always so, but the academy has become very grant- and research- oriented and less inclined towards ascertaining and illuminating truth.

[Sean]

my father used to always ask me where all the water of the flood came and went?

I don't think I've ever heard a compelling "scientific" explanation to where any of the water that fills the earth's oceans came from in the first place. One more recent explanation is tied with the last great super impact to the earth as the solar system was in it's early stages. This impact supposedly, among other things, caused it to rain until all the oceans were created. And this is from secular science. So let me get this straight. It can rain until all the earth is filled with oceans of water, but the flood of Noah is impossible? As far as where the water went, I think plate tectonics offers a viable answer. But this area is mostly guesswork.

[backwoodsman]

my father used to always ask me where all the water of the flood came and went?

Since this thread is, after all, about RTB's view:
http://www.reasons.org/waters-flood
http://www.reasons.org/interpreting-genesis/noahs-flood

[alastairblake]

my father used to always ask me where all the water of the flood came and went?

Since this thread is, after all, about RTB's view:
http://www.reasons.org/waters-flood
http://www.reasons.org/interpreting-genesis/noahs-flood

Backwoodsman, im reading these articles.... thank you for pointing these out. some nice prospects.

[backwoodsman]

Backwoodsman, im reading these articles.... thank you for pointing these out. some nice prospects.

Glad you found them useful. I was hoping someone would come back with some well-thought-out objections to some of RTB's points, but maybe this topic has burned itself out for the moment.

[alastairblake]

maybe. and i agree, id love to hear some worked out objections. (I currently appreciate RTB and their view of a literal Adam and Eve; I read the Jesus Creed blog on Patheos, and it seems that is something that is brought up, and.... being challenged.)