Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the evidence support the Flood? (attn: DwarfishSquints)
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 61 of 293 (468166)
05-27-2008 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Rahvin
05-27-2008 11:07 AM


Re: Where did all the water come from?
Rahvin writes:
Wumpini, you haven't thought this through very far. You read about a discovery of water under the Earth in addition to the water I spoke of in my calculations, yes, but it's not available water.
Rahvin, Rahvin, you keep repeating yourself without giving any evidence. Is this proof by assertion? If you look back at my posts, you will see that I keep linking to scientific papers and reports. I found this great quantity of water under the surface of the earth, and I gave you links to the scientific reports relating to that discovery. In one of those reports, I gave you the following quote:
quote:
Already the types of rocks recovered show that conventional interpretation of Earth’s evolution are “oversimplifying many of the features of the ocean’s crust” said expedition leader Jay Miller of Texas A&M University. Each time we drill a hole, we learn that earth’s structure is more complex. Our understanding of how the Earth evolved is changing accordingly.
The entire scientific theory of what is under the ocean’s surface, and how it got to where it is today is changing. You seem to be ignoring this fact. You keep repeating yourself and saying the water is not available. Do you know something else that they found Rahvin? There was a scientific report written recently by researchers who suggest that a large percentage of the water in the mantle is sea water. This is scientific research.
quote:
The researchers analyzed the gases and determined that the sample contained a largely marine “fingerprint,” which may indicate large-scale seawater recycling through Earth’s interior.
Not only did they find seawater but they propose “large scale seawater recycling through the Earth’s interior." It sounds to me Rahvin like you need to start doing some research yourself. Look at your last two posts. There is not one reference to any scientific fact that I could find. There is not one paper quoted or one link. Everything is your opinion, and you think if you keep repeating it long enough then I will bow down and you will win this argument. You keep saying the water is not available. The water is not available. But, you give no proof. Proof by assertion.
Here is a link to the above quote:
Geotimes - July 2006 - Earth soaks up seawater
If you read that article then you will find an interesting scientific calculation. As I said above, these researchers have calculated that as much as one half of the water in the mantle is seawater. Here is the quote:
quote:
Assuming the same seawater composition for the entire mantle, they calculated that seawater accounts for about 50 percent of the water in the mantle, with the rest of the water trapped during the planet’s formation, they reported in the May 11 Nature.
Let us see what we have looked at so far. It has been estimated by scientists that there is as much as ten times the amount of water under the surface of this planet as there is in all of the oceans. Researchers are indicating that they are continually having to adjust their theories regarding the ocean crust, and the evolution of the earth as they dig down under the surface. Now we have additional scientific research that says that 50% of this water under the earth could be seawater. And, they indicate there could be large scale seawater recycling through the Earth’s interior. This is new science Rahvin. You need to quit saying that things are impossible. That is what they told Einstein and Newton and all those other scientists with their ridiculous theories.
A lot of this water under the earth is seawater and it is circulating. Now where could it be circulating? We know that it comes out during volcanic activity. I think those vent holes at the bottom of the ocean is another good place to look. Now I know that Coragyps said that the water was only seawater that was being circulated from the ocean. However, let us look at that theory once again. This new scientific research says the seawater is circulating through the mantle. They say their entire view of the ocean floor and the evolution of the earth is changing. It sounds quite possible to me that this seawater could be coming out of those vents on the ocean floor. If that is true then some of those vent fields near the Artic ice caps are pushing out water close to the temperature of the ocean.
I have done the research. Look back through some of my old posts Rahvin. You will find links about these vents and the other scientific research I have done. It sounds to me like we may have solved the water availability problem, and the heat problem at the same time. No more assertions without proof Rahvin. If you dispute these scientists, then give me some evidence to show that they are wrong. Prove that their research is incorrect. Otherwise, you must accept this theory as showing that the water was available for a world wide flood.
You said in your post.
Rahvin writes:
Realistically, to account for the Biblical claim that even the mointains were covered by 15 cubits of water, you'd need far more than 10 times the amount of water in the oceans to match the Biblical claim, since there are many points on Earth more than 10 times the elevation of Indiana (most of the Middle East in fact is 5 times that elevation; the mountains are far, far higher).
Why do you make all of these invalid assertions? If you would pay attention to my posts, then you would know that I have already made these calculations. It would not take ten times the amount of water that is in the oceans today to cover up Mt. Everest. It would only take about one third of that amount.
Here was my original calculation:
Wumpini Msg 32 writes:
If there is five times as much water under the earth as on the surface, as these scientific investigations indicate, then that would give us an additional 6,690,000,000 km^3 of water available using only the water in the oceans for our calculation. The research indicates there could be as much as ten times the amount of water in the mantle as on the surface of the planet. That could potentially double this number.
The total area of the earth is 510,065,000 km^2.
If we flooded the earth with this additional 6,690,000,000 km^3 of water we would get this calculation.
6,690,000,000 km^3 / 510,065,000 km^2 = 13.12 km deep.
If all of this water was used to flood the earth then it would add a total depth of 13.12 km, or 13,120 meters which is more than sufficient to submerge Mt. Everest at its present height of 8,850 meters.
It would only take a little more than three times the amount in the oceans to cover up Mt. Everest at its present height. If you ever concede this discussion about water then we may be able to begin to discuss how high Mt. Everest actually was before a global flood. My theory is that it was not at its present height.
Regardless, it has been estimated by some scientists that as much as ten times the amount of water in all of the oceans is now under the surface of this planet. It has also been estimated by scientists that 50% of that water is seawater that did not originate from under the earth but came from the oceans. Science is proposing that this water is circulating from the seas through the mantle. Since, we only need three times the oceans to cover up Mt. Everest, there is plenty of water AVAILABLE to accomplish this task.
What scientific research have you done Rahvin? Your assertions up to date have been proven incorrect. You said there is not enough water. I find scientific research that proves there is water. Then you say it is impossible for this water to come to the surface. You say it is not available. I not only show that it is possible. I find scientific research where it is proposed that at one time the water was on the surface. Your assertions are invalid. Continuing to state them over and over again without proof will not make them valid.
You say:
Rahvin writes:
Wumpini, you haven't thought this through very far. You read about a discovery of water under the Earth in addition to the water I spoke of in my calculations, yes, but it's not available water.
Actually, you are the one who has not thought this through. It appears that you have reached a conclusion without evidence. You have reached the conclusion that there is not enough water anywhere to flood the world. It is an invalid conclusion Rahvin.
What would happen if all of science took that course? What if they had said, “it is impossible that the earth revolves around the sun?” Would science still believe that the earth is the center of the solar system? What if they said that "it is impossible that the earth is a sphere?" Would science still believe the earth is flat? It is not good science to begin with the theory that something is impossible. Science has repeatedly had to totally change their perception of the earth in the past. The research taking place now on the ocean floor, and inside the earth is groundbreaking research. If you disagree with the research, then prove it wrong. However, do not base your argument upon the theory of impossibility.
Finally you say:
Rahvin writes:
Further, as you'll notice the topic of the thread, this is about whether the evidence supports a global Flood. I used the insufficient water argument as my opening argument because of my initial discussion with DwarfishSquints in another thread - he simply chose not to participate.
Your opening argument for this thread was that there was insufficient water on the earth for a global flood. You have not even begun to prove that argument. Why should we move on to other arguments, when you cannot even prove your initial argument? Is your plan to introduce a number of arguments with the hope that you may be able to finally prove one. Maybe your plan is to tire me out by making repeated unsubstantiated assertions where I must continually work and research to defeat them.
If you want to concede that there is sufficient water on the earth to account for a global flood, then we can move on to other arguments. Until that time, I think it would be better to finish this one.
I will be traveling extensively over the next couple of weeks so my time will be limited. I will try to reply as I am able.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Rahvin, posted 05-27-2008 11:07 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by bluescat48, posted 05-27-2008 8:55 PM Wumpini has replied
 Message 66 by bluegenes, posted 05-28-2008 10:53 AM Wumpini has replied
 Message 68 by Nuggin, posted 05-28-2008 11:44 AM Wumpini has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 62 of 293 (468169)
05-27-2008 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Wumpini
05-27-2008 7:29 PM


Re: Where did all the water come from?
My theory is that it was not at its present height.
Why? What evidence is there that ~5000 years ago Mt Everest was not at its present height

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Wumpini, posted 05-27-2008 7:29 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Wumpini, posted 05-28-2008 7:06 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 63 of 293 (468173)
05-28-2008 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by bluescat48
05-27-2008 8:55 PM


Height of Mt. Everest 5000 years ago
Wumpini writes:
My theory is that it was not at its present height.
bluescat48 writes:
Why? What evidence is there that ~5000 years ago Mt Everest was not at its present height
Scientifically, we know that the height of Mt. Everest today is not the same as it was 5000 years ago due to the forces of plate tectonics and erosion. Therefore, the evidence will clearly support my statement that “my theory is that it was not at its present height” before a global flood that took place that long ago.
National Geographic answers the question about how fast the height of Mt Everest is changing on an ongoing basis:
quote:
How fast is the great peak growing? In 1994 researchers placed a global positioning satellite (GPS) device on the South Col, a plateau below the summit. Readings suggest that Everest grows 0.1576 inches (about four millimeters) each year.
National Geographic - 404
However, this mountain was not formed by a gradual climb up into the sky. It was formed by a catastrophic event when the continental plates collided.
Here is another article which gives some of the same information:
quote:
The GPS-supported position measurements carried out in May of 1999, which established the elevation of the Everest summit at 8,850 meters or 29,035.3, were not only exact to the centimeter but could also calculate the continuous movement of the peak due to the continental drift . The "infiltration" of the Eurasian continental platform by the Indian subcontinent goes on and is the cause for the rising and shifting of the Himalaya massif. Based on the results from the first GPS measurements at the south saddle of Mount Everest (at an elevation of 7,930 meters or 26,017 feet) four years ago the expert team concluded that the Everest massif rises at least 4 millimeters or 1.5 inches per year.
More recent research has scientists pondering what portion of this change is due to lateral movement and what portion is due to upward movement.
quote:
However, at a recent press conference Bradford Washburns explained that the elevation of Mount Everest has not changed but that the mountain has been moving 3 to 6 millimeters or 12 to 24 inches per year in the north-eastern direction. Still, the regional tectonics have led Bradford Washburn to the conviction that Mount Everest and the entire Himalaya massif have been gaining elevation over the years, millimeter by millimeter.
http://www.alpineresearch.ch/alpine/en/presse1.html
Obviously, there is an error in these articles related to the conversion of millimeters to inches. 1 millimeter is equal to .15748 inches. That does not negate the fact that there is a change in height taking place. This calculation error may also explain why other sources indicate that the change in height was up to two inches per year (See Below).
A uniform 4 millimeter increase per year for a five thousand year period would result in an increase in height of 20,000 millimeters, or 65 feet before erosion. This change in elevation by itself would justify my statement that the elevation of Mt Everest today is not the same as it was 5000 years ago. Other sources have indicated that this growth could be as much as two inches per year which would bring the total increase over 5000 years to over 800 feet. However, I have not been able to confirm what the correct calculation should be to my satisfaction from what I would consider a reliable scientific source. If I had to make a supposition, then I would say the correct number would be 4 millimeters or .15748 inches per year.
Here is an example of a contradictory source:
quote:
The highest mountain on the planet, Mount Everest is growing two inches taller each year.
http://library.thinkquest.org/J002388/mounteverest.html
Regardless of what the current change in height is stated to be, it is a scientific fact that due to plate activity the height is changing. It is also a scientific theory (fact) that these mountains were originally formed through a significant geological catastrophic event. They were not formed through a gradual increase in elevation over many, many years.
Geology of the Himalayas - Wikipedia
Therefore, after a global catastrophic geological event such as a world wide flood there could be a significantly different effect than the 65 foot (or 800 foot) change that could be anticipated through uniformatism (before erosion).
When this portion of the debate, which is related to the available water for a flood, is complete, then I may take the time to propose a geological catastrophic calculation that would theoretically project the height of Mt. Everest before the time of a global flood suspected to have taken place about 5000 years ago. That is if the time is available.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by bluescat48, posted 05-27-2008 8:55 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by bluescat48, posted 05-28-2008 9:15 AM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 65 by Codegate, posted 05-28-2008 10:40 AM Wumpini has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 64 of 293 (468187)
05-28-2008 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Wumpini
05-28-2008 7:06 AM


Re: Height of Mt. Everest 5000 years ago
What you say is true but the change in height over 5000 years, given your 2 different amounts of yearly change, would eaual. at 4mm/yr a distance of 20 meters or at 2 inches/year 833ft which would still have its height at over 28000ft, 5000 years ago not much difference.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Wumpini, posted 05-28-2008 7:06 AM Wumpini has not replied

  
Codegate
Member (Idle past 818 days)
Posts: 84
From: The Great White North
Joined: 03-15-2006


Message 65 of 293 (468198)
05-28-2008 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Wumpini
05-28-2008 7:06 AM


Why are we limited to the water on Earth?
Why are we limited to the water on Earth?
I mean, we are talking about God here. In order to cleanse the Earth, why wouldn't he just grab some spare available water kicking around in the neighborhood - say the 10 mile deep oceans on Europa or the martian ice caps and just precipitate those onto the Earth surface over 40 days. Once the cleansing was complete he could just as easily slowly move the water all back to it's original location. Or destroy it completely - perhaps that is where the supposed martian oceans went... God used them to cleanse the Earth and then got rid of it.
In fact, why are we worried at all about where the water came from? Why didn't God just create it? Certainly would be a lot simpler, wouldn't it?
I find the whole, "there isn't enough water" or "where did it come from" arguments about the flood extremely useless. Coming up with a simple, common material and dumping it on the Earth for a short period of time and then getting rid of it would be something easily within the capabilities of God.
The important questions that need to be answered about the flood is why didn't it leave any geologic/physical/biological evidence? There is no global sediment layer, no global population bottlenecks, no massive fossil layer with dinosaurs, mammals, birds, fish, amphibians all jumbled together, and..., and..., and... - the list goes on and on.
Again, there is a very simple solution to this and that is that God made it look the way it is. Once the Earth was cleansed, he wanted to hide and tamper with the evidence. This leads us to (as a former poster here put it) a trickster god that leaves us with a world that intentionally misleads us. In that case, how can we know that he didn't do the exact same thing last Thursday and none of us actually existed before then - how would we know?
It boggles my mind that so many people put so much emphasis on a series of books, written by men, over thousands of years, translated and copied many times and insist that it is completely, 100% factual.
Why can't people look at the 'books' supposedly created by God - the Earth and Universe - and read and interpret it?
That is what science does. They are arguably the true worshipers of God and his creation. Not some man written manuscript.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Wumpini, posted 05-28-2008 7:06 AM Wumpini has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 66 of 293 (468201)
05-28-2008 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Wumpini
05-27-2008 7:29 PM


Re: Where did all the water come from?
Wumpini writes:
If you read that article {Geotimes - July 2006 - Earth soaks up seawater} then you will find an interesting scientific calculation. As I said above, these researchers have calculated that as much as one half of the water in the mantle is seawater. Here is the quote:
quote:
Assuming the same seawater composition for the entire mantle, they calculated that seawater accounts for about 50 percent of the water in the mantle, with the rest of the water trapped during the planet’s formation, they reported in the May 11 Nature.
And, if you'd read carefully:
quote:
That much seawater in the mantle means that as much as 10 percent of Earth’s oceans have been subducted into the planet’s interior throughout its history ” more than returns to the atmosphere and oceans through volcanic eruptions, Holland says. “On balance,” he adds, “the cycle is moving water from the surface and into the mantle.”
So, what is the claim of these researchers, Wumpini?
They think that the oceans have lost 10% of their water to the mantle, doubling the water in the mantle, and meaning that they think the mantle water now equals 20% of the original quantity in the oceans, and two ninths of the present quantity in the oceans.
This means that the researchers you are quoting do not think that there's enough water in the mantle to cover the earth. What they are saying is that the surface water is being slowly lost to the interior; that a very small percentage is managing to pass the heat barrier somehow.
At the rate described, in another 30 billion years or so, the oceans will have disappeared!!!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Wumpini, posted 05-27-2008 7:29 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Wumpini, posted 05-28-2008 6:36 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 67 of 293 (468204)
05-28-2008 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Wumpini
05-27-2008 8:48 AM


Re: Notice
wumpini writes:
If you would like to maturely discuss the scientific and theological implications of different theories ...
Don't bother to respond. You've already made it clear that posts you can't refute will get ignored. (And I thought you didn't want to be treated like a stereotypical uneducated creationist).
Here's the "theological implications" which you state that you want to discuss.
The "Magical Great Flood", for which you claim to have evidence, would have been created by the all powerful, all knowing Judeo/Christian God.
"All powerful" and "all knowing" means that he could have chosen ANY solution to solve his problem AND he would have know the outcome of that solution.
As is demonstrated in Exodus, God can selectively kill infants of the people he doesn't like while leaving the rest of the city standing.
However, in the case of the Great Flood, God chooses genocide.
He chooses to kill millions of innocent animals, plants, children, etc with a "worldwide flood", rather than to go down and kill off JUST the wicked adults who are misbehaving.
For a deity who is "all powerful", both acts are possible.
So, the unavoidable "theological implication" which you asked to discuss , is that this so called God is profoundly evil.
Are you sure that you want to present evidence for this Flood?
Now for the admins:
Yes, I know, I confronted a Creationist with logic about something THEY raised in one of their posts. Time for you to ban me. While you are at it, let's change the name from "EVC forum" to "C forum".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Wumpini, posted 05-27-2008 8:48 AM Wumpini has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 68 of 293 (468208)
05-28-2008 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Wumpini
05-27-2008 7:29 PM


Re: Where did all the water come from?
wumpini writes:
Rahvin, Rahvin, you keep repeating yourself without giving any evidence. Is this proof by assertion?
Wumpini, Wumpini, Wumpini...
Who was it that said:
wumpini writes:
When I went IN the mountains I saw something different. I saw all kinds of dinosaur bones, and many other fossils piled up on top of each other with debris mixed in. It seemed as if it was all buried very quickly by something.
Care to explain why Ravin should be held to a higher standard than yourself? Oh, that's right, it's because you're special. I forgot.
wumpini writes:
I found this great quantity of water under the surface of the earth
And R pointed out that that water is under high pressure and dissolved in magma. You've offered NO explanation as to HOW the water go OUT of the magma without burning the Earth to a cinder.
It's not enough to find a "source" of the water if you have no means of getting to from point A to point B. You might as well have said "there's plenty of water in the Ortt cloud". Guess what? It's still there. Just like any water below the crust is STILL below the crust.
wumpini writes:
If you read that article then you will find an interesting scientific calculation. As I said above, these researchers have calculated that as much as one half of the water in the mantle is seawater. Here is the quote:
quote:Assuming the same seawater composition for the entire mantle, they calculated that seawater accounts for about 50 percent of the water in the mantle, with the rest of the water trapped during the planet’s formation, they reported in the May 11 Nature.
And if YOU had read the article YOU would have seen the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH:
"That much seawater in the mantle means that as much as 10 percent of Earth’s oceans have been subducted into the planet’s interior throughout its history ” "
That means that the water in the mantle represents an amount equal to 10% of the ocean water currently on the Earth today.
In other words, NOT ENOUGH WATER.
What's the matter? Decided to skip that part because it contradicts your point.
Here's a tip: If you are going to quote an article, make sure that it supports your claims.
And just for the record: A stereotypical uneducated Creationist would likely quote mine a scientific article for a tidbit while missing the parts that contradict their claims.
But, you aren't a stereotypical uneducated Creationists, right?
wumpini writes:
It would only take a little more than three times the amount in the oceans to cover up Mt. Everest at its present height.
And given that the article implies that it's 10% of the ocean volume, you are coming up 290% short.
Oh wait, that's right, earlier you quoted a different article which claimed 10X the amount of water.
So, which article you are citing is wrong? The one that claims it's 10X the amount or the one that claims the water in the mantle is seawater?
Either way, you've just destroyed 50% of your argument.
wumpini writes:
Your opening argument for this thread was that there was insufficient water on the earth for a global flood. You have not even begun to prove that argument. Why should we move on to other arguments, when you cannot even prove your initial argument?
The thread is about evidence - not claims of evidence.
You CLAIM that there is enough water available for the "magical great flood" to have occurred. You've failed to provide evidence for that claim.
But, let's pretend you have provided evidence that there is enough water - THAT is not evidence FOR a "magical great flood".
There is enough sand to form a giant sand Godzilla. The amount of sand is NOT evidence FOR a giant sand Godzilla.
If you were a stereotypical uneducated creationist, you would want to stay on this topic since it doesn't require you to address the fact that there is no actual evidence. You would grab desperately to any attempt to force Rahvin to try and prove a negative.
But, as you pointed out earlier, you aren't a stereotypical uneducated Creationist, so let's move on to evidence FOR a Great Flood.
Got any?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Wumpini, posted 05-27-2008 7:29 PM Wumpini has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Coyote, posted 05-28-2008 12:08 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 69 of 293 (468212)
05-28-2008 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Nuggin
05-28-2008 11:44 AM


Re: Where did all the water come from?
The thread is about evidence - not claims of evidence.
Pretty much everything about the flood is religious belief.
This is easy to document. If you ignore the bible and work strictly from the evidence you do not come up with a global flood about 4,500 years ago. Such an idea would be preposterous, as there is no evidence supporting it.
What creationists and fundamentalists do is start with the religious belief that there was such a flood and try to twist the facts around enough to make it (barely) possible. But by doing so they are forced to ignore huge amounts of established science, and contradict the rest.
This thread is a good example.
But my favorite is John Woodmorappe's The non-transitions in ”human evolution’-on evolutionists’ terms.
He suggests that Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man--all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.
This is particularly amusing because the change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man--but in reverse!
Talk about making it up as you go!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Nuggin, posted 05-28-2008 11:44 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 70 of 293 (468231)
05-28-2008 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Rahvin
05-27-2008 11:07 AM


Re: Where did all the water come from?
Rahvin Message 1
Rahvin writes:
If you by some physics-violating miracle take all of the water in the ice caps, all of the water from underground, and all of the water in the atmosphere, you will still be over 21,000,000 km^3 short. That's about 1/4 of what we said was needed.
There is not enough water on the entire planet to Flood the Earth as claimed in the Bible, even ignoring mountains, giving an absurdly low average elevation for the continents, ignoring all of the facts that make taking all of the water on the planet out of the atmosphere and up from the ground and melting it from the ice caps completely impossible, and giving the Creationist side the most favorable measurements and assumptions possible. It's not even close.
Then in message [msg-19]
Rahvin writes:
Maybe the time will come when I will have that desire. Right now I am attempting to devote my time to other areas. Therefore, I would like to limit our discussion to the question of whether there was enough water for a global flood to have taken place, and the calculations that you made to attempt to prove your point. If you want to argue other points that refute the possibility of a global flood, then please let me bow out, and you do that with someone else.
Acceptable for now.
The quote is from Wumpini in [msg-16]
Wumpini expresses a desire to limit the discussion as to the question of whether there was enough water for a global flood to have taken place due to time restraints. Rahvin you agreed this was acceptable.
Rahvin writes:
If you by some physics-violating miracle take all of the water in the ice caps, all of the water from underground, and all of the water in the atmosphere, you will still be over 21,000,000 km^3 short. That's about 1/4 of what we said was needed.
So we need 3 more times that amount to do the job.
If the scientist are correct that Wumpini cited and there is at least 5 times as much water in the mantel as the oceans. That should be plenty of water to flood the earth as Wumpini's math shows in Message 32
The only qualifiers I see to the access to water are: all of the water in the ice caps, all of the water from underground, and all of the water in the atmosphere,
Ravin your assertion that: "There is not enough water on the entire planet to Flood the Earth as claimed in the Bible,". Has been falsified.
Now you can claim special pleadings if you so desire. But you set the bounds of the discussion.
It did not include proving that the flood happened.
It did not even include that it had to be possible to happen.
Only that there had to be enough water to accomplish the flood as put forth in the Bible.
So you claim special pleadings as everybody else has that the water in the mantel is not available to add to what we have to cover the earth. Does your special pleadings mean that the water was never available? Does it mean the water does not exist?
But that was not what you stated in the OP.
You plainly stated there was not enough water in or on the planet to produce the flood.
Science says there is enough water to do the job and then quite a bit left over.
Just because there is enough water to flood the earth as stated in the Bible does not prove that it happened.
Now the creo tactic of changing playing fields.
Rahvin in message 60.
Hi Rahvin,
quote:
Rahvin writes:
You read about a discovery of water under the Earth in addition to the water I spoke of in my calculations, yes, but it's not available water.
I find ten times more water than you think is on the earth, and now you turn around and say you don't like my water. You say it is "not available." Well I know this is a science forum, but I assure you that all the water on this planet is available to God. Its His water.
Irrelevant. We need to see evidence of a Flood - even a Flood caused by a deity should leave evidence for us to find just a few scant thousand years later (unless the deity specifically covered up this evidence, in which case arguing is moot). The fact is that the water you have mentioned is dissolved in molten rock in the Earth's mantle. It's superheated to several times its boiling point, and it's highly pressurized. To bring that water to the surface, you'd need massive volcanism to transport the magma to the surface, you'd have massive explosions as the superheated water depressurized, and the heat from the water and the magma it's trapped in would parbroil the Earth. Did you happen to notice how much water is dissolved in the magma? Specifically, how much magma contains all of that water? The magma will need to be massively depressurized in order to release its dissolved contents - which means catastrophic volcanism, releasing incredible amounts of heat. Did you also notice what else is dissolved in magma? There's a reason volcanologists don't tend to approach volcanic calderas - extremely toxic gasses are also dissolved in the molten rock. Your scenario would not only superheat the Earth, but also release massive amounts of toxic gasses into the atmosphere. As is typical of Creationist "theories" for the Flood, the water itself would be the least of Noah's problems.
So now you are demanding that there be evidence of a flood.
According to your agreement with Wumpini all that had to be shown was there was enough water.
It was shown that science says there is enough water not just one group of scientist but two with ranges of 5 to 10 times the amount in the oceans above what we knew about already.
But nevermind it is ok for you guys to change the goalposts just not alright for Creo's to do it.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Rahvin, posted 05-27-2008 11:07 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by bluescat48, posted 05-28-2008 3:38 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 72 by Nuggin, posted 05-28-2008 3:49 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 73 by Nuggin, posted 05-28-2008 3:55 PM ICANT has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 71 of 293 (468237)
05-28-2008 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by ICANT
05-28-2008 2:53 PM


Re: Where did all the water come from?
Unfortunately even if there is enough water in the ice caps and underground, it has been shown that the end result wouldn't give the desired results do to the added toxic gases, extremely hot atmosphere not to mention the tsunami that would occur with the immediate release of the super heated water under extreme pressure.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by ICANT, posted 05-28-2008 2:53 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by ICANT, posted 05-28-2008 3:56 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 72 of 293 (468239)
05-28-2008 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by ICANT
05-28-2008 2:53 PM


Re: Where did all the water come from?
If the scientist are correct that Wumpini cited and there is at least 5 times as much water in the mantel as the oceans. That should be plenty of water to flood the earth
Unless of course the OTHER scientists that Wumpini cited are correct, in which case he is coming up 290% short.
See, that's the problem for you Creationists. You want to cherry pick data from source A and source B and exclude the parts from A and B you don't like.
That's not how it works. Either A is valid and there is plenty of water but it is NOT transferable from mantle to surface OR B is valid and there isn't enough water but you CAN get to it.
Which is it? Which way are is Wumpini wrong is his claim? I'll let you pick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by ICANT, posted 05-28-2008 2:53 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 05-28-2008 4:43 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 73 of 293 (468241)
05-28-2008 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by ICANT
05-28-2008 2:53 PM


Re: Where did all the water come from?
It did not include proving that the flood happened.
It did not even include that it had to be possible to happen.
Only that there had to be enough water to accomplish the flood as put forth in the Bible.
While I still hold that you have absolutely failed in your attempts to prove access to the "magic water", I would like to point out the following:
SO WHAT?
Let's ASSUME that you get to cherry pick your answers. So you take one number from one report and multiply it by another number from another report, then discard all the evidence that contradicts you, claim that "magic" solves the thermodynamic problems, etc, etc, etc.
That's STILL not evidence FOR a Flood.
Like I pointed out before - there is PLENTY of sand on Earth to form a giant sand Godzilla. By your standards, THAT ALONE is evidence of a giant sand Godzilla.
As a different poster pointed out -
Whether or not there is enough water for a flood is totally MOOT!
We are talking about a "magical" invisible wizard who "magically" sucked the "magic" water from deep in the Earth's crust and "magically" made it rain from the sky.
Why not just both agree that the "magic" wizards could "magically" make the "magic" water out of thin air then "magically" make it vanish again?
There. Problem solved.
Now, let's get on to EVIDENCE that this MAGIC WATER actually WAS PRESENT. Got any? Didn't think so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by ICANT, posted 05-28-2008 2:53 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 05-28-2008 4:23 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 74 of 293 (468242)
05-28-2008 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by bluescat48
05-28-2008 3:38 PM


Re: Where did all the water come from?
bluescat48 writes:
Unfortunately even if there is enough water in the ice caps and underground, it has been shown that the end result wouldn't give the desired results do to the added toxic gases, extremely hot atmosphere not to mention the tsunami that would occur with the immediate release of the super heated water under extreme pressure.
cat either there is enough or there is not enough.
Whether it is possible or what the consequences would be is immaterial.
Rahvin stated there was not enough water.
Science says there is enough.
So what does anything you said have to do with there being enough water or not enough water?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by bluescat48, posted 05-28-2008 3:38 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 75 of 293 (468248)
05-28-2008 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Nuggin
05-28-2008 3:55 PM


Re: Where did all the water come from?
Nuggin writes:
That's STILL not evidence FOR a Flood.
Did I say it was?
Nuggin writes:
We are talking about a "magical" invisible wizard who "magically" sucked the "magic" water from deep in the Earth's crust and "magically" made it rain from the sky.
Maybe it was in the sky to begin with.
Nuggin writes:
Whether or not there is enough water for a flood is totally MOOT!
Rahvin msg31 writes:
There is not enough water on the entire planet to Flood the Earth as claimed in the Bible,
The statement was there is not enough water, so why would whether there is enough water for a flood be totally MOOT?
Nuggin writes:
Why not just both agree that the "magic" wizards could "magically" make the "magic" water out of thin air then "magically" make it vanish again?
I got no problem with that.
But this is a science thread and we are discussing if there is enough water on planet earth to be enough to cover the earth as stated in the Bible.
Nuggin writes:
Now, let's get on to EVIDENCE that this MAGIC WATER actually WAS PRESENT. Got any? Didn't think so.
I never claimed the magic water existed, but I do know you mentioned it.
In Message 32Wumpini gives several sources for scientist saying there is enough water to flood the earth as stated in the Bible.
If you would like to disprove their study and experiments I would suggest you get busy as it looks like it took a lot of time and money to do the research and tests they did.
Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth | Live Science
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...7_0307_waterworld.html
Just a moment...
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Nuggin, posted 05-28-2008 3:55 PM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Coragyps, posted 05-28-2008 5:34 PM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024