Reply To: Private: Your Mechanism for the Universal Flood is Badly Flawed

Home Forums General Discussion Private: Your Mechanism for the Universal Flood is Badly Flawed Reply To: Private: Your Mechanism for the Universal Flood is Badly Flawed


Hi Frank,

Thanks for putting forth the effort to look that up. No, it doesn’t resolve the differences between me and Sessions on the issue, however. In fact, the points you quoted support my point, and refute Dean’s. If you look in the UM book where he talks about “evidences” for the universal flood, he repeatedly says that various minerals “must have” come from “hyprethermal” conditions in the flood, rather than from molten rock, because melt always turns into glass. I wrote a blog post explaining the whole thing with the title, “Quartz is Not Glass. So What?”

Personally, I think this should make a difference to you as far as the UM is concerned, because it calls into question quite a number of Dean Sessions’ arguments. Does it completely disprove his main claims? Of course not, and I never said it did. But when, by searching the internet for a few minutes, you can find information that refutes a simple point that is referenced over and over in the UM’s arguments, doesn’t that make you want to exercise a little caution with the UM? Take it’s claims “with a grain of salt”?

As for the topic of this thread, I propose that you do like Dean Sessions says and perform your own experiment. Take a heavy-ish weight and tie it to a rope or string. Swing it in a circle around your head and note how hard the string tugs on your hand. Now hold the string so the weight is much closer to your hand (the swinging radius is much shorter) and do the same thing, making sure that the time it takes for the weight to go around once is about the same as before. You will find that it tugs on your hand much more weakly. You will have just proven to yourself that I was right, and Sessions’ centrifugal force explanation for the flood can’t be right, because it wouldn’t work at the poles, where the spin radius is zero. Supposing you go to the trouble to do that experiment, wouldn’t that make you wonder if Sessions’ other arguments are similarly flawed, when this one can be refuted by reference to a simple freshman-level physics principle? All I’m asking you to do at this point is to exercise a little caution.