d: As the earth tipped on its axis the north would have experience instant winter. In the north, the rising water would have mixed with dirt, the mammoths, seeking higher ground, sank in the gooey cold mass and everything froze.
k: How would the specific heat of water enter this idea?
d: Kland you have much more of a scientific mind than I have, so not sure how to answer that question.
But I would suppose it depended on where the water was coming from?
Of course if it were swirling in from the equator regions the water temperature would over ride the sudden drop in air temperature.
But since this probably happened near the beginning of the 40 days and nights, there wouldn't have been water swirling in from the equator regions -- there would be only a lot of half frozen rain pouring down?
And also different areas would have had different conditions.
Instant winter in the atmosphere, perhaps. But everything freezing I don't see how's possible. Even if the water was at 31 degrees, of which it wasn't and thought to be quite warm during the flood, it would take lots of heat loss energy before it would freeze.
d: Remember they have been found with buttercups in their stomachs-- that doesn't sound like they were in snow.
k: Why would snow preclude buttercups in their mouths/stomachs?
d: I guess I assumed it would because where I live, there is snow and freezing cold temperatures and NO buttercups anywhere. Buttercups are rather delicate and decay rather quickly when things start getting cold.
Lot's of delicate tundra flowers. That's what the evolution site was saying is that buttercups do grow on tundra and are in the arctic today.
Somehow my idea of a fast coming ice age, is still not instantly. The cold would have killed the vegetation and ice covered the ground sometime before the mammoths would have succumbed to it's deadly chill.
I don't know, seven feet of snow in a short time could wreck havoc. Seems like I heard something like that recently. But if the sun was blocked out, the warm humid moisture falling as snow, it could happen quickly.
But as I said, the creationscience site seems to suggest otherwise and compares more to your thoughts.
k: I am of the opinion that the flood totally changed the topography of the planet.[quote]
d: I would agree, yet some areas seem to have been changed far more than other areas depending on the breaking apart of the earth's crust and mountains being forced up, while other areas didn't break up and no mountains were created.
I meaning that nothing would be recognizable unlike some who speak of the rivers still existing from Eden.
An interesting thought about the earth tilting. Why couldn't it be tilted all the time? Wouldn't the upper water canopy equalize the temperatures? What would a flood tilting of the earth mean to the moon people?
Moon people????
Did the gravity shift between moon and earth depopulated the moon???
OK -- You probably had something quite different in mind.
Yep. Same reaction though. I'm speaking of the moon worshipers. Those saying that there was an equinox, feast days, etc. from the beginning. If the earth wasn't tilted, then that couldn't be true.
The earths tilt is not only associated with the seasons, but also with the variable length of day and night. Would day and night have been more regular in an "untilted" earth?
Even the "water canopy" is not really understood. Would it have hidden the stars from view? --
Yes, day and night would be equal everywhere. As at the equinox. And a thought would be the sun would rule the day and the moon the night with both opposite each other so that as the sun went down, the moon came up.
One theory with the water canopy is that somewhere in the Bible it says on the order that the moon will be as bright as the sun and the sun will be 7 times brighter. If it will be, and things will be restored, would it follow that they were that way in the past, and therefore with all that energy, the water canopy was able to be maintained.
Stars? I had thought of that before. I could see that only if this water canopy was clear....
