The Flood = many coincidences

My impression is that the signal/noise ratio is getting pretty small. How about better quality messages?Adminnsmooseus

---

You make it very difficult to discuss this, but I'll give it a try. Actually, from this list it is a list of beliefs. Irrelevant. That is a religious belief, not something confirmed by scientific evidence. In fact, it is strongly contradicted by scientific evidence. Actually the settlement is what cannot be argued. There has been no evidence provided for the flood. Not so. We don't have to rely just on that area for evidence of continuity before and after the dates purported for the flood. And as you don't have evidence for a flood in the Jericho archaeology, that is a moot point. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Biblical scholars place the date of the flood at about 4,350 years ago. We don't need rocks or geology at all! We are dealing, at that time period, with soils. Irrelevant (and wrong). Irrelevant. Irrelevant; and about 530 million years too old. Certainly not from what you have presented above, nor from the archaeological record. They place the flood at about 4,350 years ago.Unfortunately there is no physical evidence for the flood at that time period. That's why I am trying to get you to settle on a particular date -- so we can focus in on that particular time period and examine the evidence, or lack of evidence, at a single time.But you keep squirming and wriggling and flopping about like a fish out of water! This really can be very simple; pick a date and we'll examine the evidence at that date.If you follow the biblical scholars, that date is about 4,350 years ago. That means that Ethiopia, origins of life, the dating of rocks, volcanoes, Jericho and the Cambrian explosion have nothing to do with it!Why don't we settle on about 4,350 years ago for the date of the flood and go from there? Is that agreeable?

---

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

First of all, I think you need to take a clear old Earth vs. young Earth position. As I see it, you have been doing a mixture of both - 200 million year old oceanic crust (old Earth-ism); A few thousand year old "great flood" (young Earth-ism). I'll tell you, Percy misspoke - The ocean basins are considerably older than 200 million years, although not in their current form. It's the current oceanic crust that is generally no older than 200 million years. But there are rocks of oceanic crust origin that are up to billions of years old (message 34). It just the case that that former oceanic crust has since become part of the continental crust.Fingernail analogy: Your fingernails are probably less than a year old, in their current form (no, I don't know how fast fingernails grow). Still, you did have fingernails prior to that year ago.Now, for plate tectonic boundaries in general:1) Mid-ocean ridges (MOR (not MOM), if you must have an acronym) - The spreading centers where new oceanic crust is produced.2) Subduction zones - Oceanic crust is lost beneath the continents or other oceanic crust.3) Transform faults (ie the San Andreas) - Plate contacts that are moving laterally relative to each other. There are also tranform faults within the oceanic crust (note where MOR's are offset).Now I'm no expert, but I suspect that type 2/type 3 hybrids exist. There might even be such a thing as type 1/type 2 and type 2/type 3 hybrids.And the type of margin at a given location can change. There is currently no subduction zone on the North American east coast, but there once was (real geologists, correct me if I'm wrong). The Atlantic Ocean basin has opened, closed, and reopened. North America and South America were once side by side with Europe and Africa. That's why they fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.Currently the Atlantic Ocean basin is getting wider and I'm guessing the Pacific Ocean basin might be getting narrower. And/or maybe, to some degree, some continents are getting compressed.Others have answered other things - I leave those at that. Peppering your messages with wise-ass little remarks such as this tends to really annoy me. And remember, part of me is Adminnemooseus. You don't want to get the A-moose cranky.Minnemooseus

Coragyps responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Mt. Everest weighs approximately 3x10^5 kg.

---

​

Surely many times that, Rrhain. A cubic kilometer of rock is going to be 3 X 10^9 kg, and Everest is bigger than just one km^3.

---

My source's exponent was off and I went with it. Mt. Everest has a volume of about 1.5x10^12 cubic meters. Assuming an average density of 2000 kg/m³, that gives a mass of 3x10^15 kg, not 3x10^5.Thus, to raise it one meter would require 3x10^16 Joules of energy. With a terajoule being 10^12, this would require about 300 to 600 times the amount of the energy released in the Nagasaki explosion.Of course, that assumes all of the energy could be converted into work (which can't be done...Second Law.) It would seem I vastly undercalculated and thus my point is even more reinforced: To have the continents shift as vastly as Buzsaw requires for his model would require the liquification of the surface of the planet, completely killing all life.Edited by Rrhain, : What is with me and my exponents today? 10^15 is peta, not tera.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

NosyNed responds to me:

quote:

---

I think this model is incorrect. At least part of the "land" is deformable.

---

But the description of the flood is not that the mountains crumbled. Indeed, if we're going to allow that the geography of the entire planet flattened out, then of course there is enough water to flood the surface.But instead, the description is that the water rose to cover the mountains, not that the mountains sank into the water. In fact, the claim of Buzsaw is that the mountains actually ROSE due to the flood. His claim is that the water came out of the air and flooded the planet and that the deluge exerted pressure upon the mountains, making them rise.The underlying point of the model is to show that if you have any amount of dry land, no matter how small, then it is geometrically impossible to use the water that currently exists to flood it for any length of time. That's why you have the dry land to begin with: It sticks out above the water and any water put on it will immediately flow back down to the lowest state, revealing the dry land.The only way to flood it completely is to add water to the system. But there isn't enough water on earth to do it. Even if the highest elevation above sea level was one inch, there isn't enough water in the air to cover it.The reason I disallow the ability to break the cup is because the description of the flood does not say the mountains crumbled. In fact, it specifically states that the mountains survived (the ark lands on Mt. Ararat.) But, I do let the cup be as small as desired so long as there is some "dry land" at the start.

quote:

---

As noted your calculations for Everest must be out of wack.

---

Yes. A 1 was dropped in my source, I didn't double-check it, and I went with it. 3x10^15 kg, not 3x10^5.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I think Ned is right, and you're misunderstanding the scenario. Right. Exactly.So take your 6x9 backing pan and put an even layer of sand in the bottom. Then take a bucket of water and pour it out into the pan from a ladder 6 ft off the ground. That impact is going to "make mountains" in your pan. But in this model, we are invoking that "the water came out of the air". We are not requiring "the water that currently exists" to flood the dry land. "the water came out of the air" = "to add water to the system" The mountains don't need to sink, and they can rise, if there's water added to the system like the scenario that Buz described (that you fumbled).

ARCHITECT-426 writes:

quote:

---

Again, this is what I know:

​

1. Mankind is fallible (no need to elaborate). God is Holy.

---

Ahem. The Bible was written by men. What makes you think it is infallible?And when did "holy" become a synonym for infallible?

quote:

---

The Flood completely erased life on earth save 8 souls.

---

Incorrect. The flood is geometrically impossible. Too, there is no geological evidence of it.Genesis 11 has the generations of Noah to Abraham (292 years from the end of the flood to Abraham).Genesis 12 tells us Abraham was 75 when god made his covenant with him (367 years)Galatians 3 says that the Exodus happened 430 years after the covenant (797 years).1 Kings 6 says that the building of the Temple of Solomon was begun 480 years after the Exodus (1277 years).It is generally considered that the Temple of Solomon was begun in 956 BCE so this means that the flood happened about 2250 BCE.The Pyramid of Khufu is from about 2600 BCE which means if there were a flood, it should show water damage.It does not.

quote:

---

The post flood settlement of the Fertile Crescent cannot be argued.

---

Since there was no flood, this is irrelevant. That there were settlements around the Fertile Crescent is not evidence of a flood.

quote:

---

Any ”evidence’ of continued civilization before the Flood is an interpretation and will be ”sketchy’ at best.

---

Except we have continual documentary evidence. None of it seems to mention a flood killing everybody. Chinese writing, for example, predates the flood and we can follow the development of the writing through the period of flood to when any sort of "Babylon" division is supposed to have happened. Strange how those who went to China managed to pick up exactly where they left off with regard to the writing system, especially since they would be descended from people with an alphabetic writing system rather than a logosyllabic system.

quote:

---

The earth is a ”wreck’.

---

This is a subjective opinion. Define "wreck."

quote:

---

Geology and especially ”historical’ geology has done nothing but send out utter confusion to the general public.

---

Irrelevant. That the general public has not bothered to study geology with sufficient rigor to understand its complexities does not negate the result of geology.

quote:

---

Furthermore, radiometric ”dating’ is not possible on metamorphic rock as it is ”contaminated’

---

Incorrect. Metamorphic rocks are easily dated.

quote:

---

Any claims that life ”began’ in Ethiopia is ill conceived.

---

Who on earth is saying "life began in Ethiopia"? Do you mean that the human race originated in Africa? There has been a discussion about human origins with an "out of Africa" scenario being compared against a multi-regional model.What is clear is that Homo erectus originated in Africa. The question is, did Homo sapiens then come out of H. erectus spread across the Old World, arising in multiple places, or did H. sapiens arise in Africa and have its own migration, replacing the H. erectus colonies that had already left.The genetic evidence is that the "out of Africa" model is most accurate.Note, however, that the flood introduces a genetic bottleneck. The only males on the ark were Noah and his three sons. Thus, only Noah's particular version of the Y-chromosome would be available to all males that came after him. Thus, the Y-chromosome in male humans of today should show very little variation given that it has only had a few thousand years to mutate.Instead, the variation in Y-chromosomes among male humans shows that it has had tens of thousands of years to mutate.

quote:

---

Life did not begin in a volcano, it’s too dang hot!

---

Life currently exists in volcanoes. Well, more accurately, right around volcanoes. Have you not heard of "extremophiles"? Take a look at the following picture of the Grand Prismatic Spring in Yellowstone National Park: Do you see the colors? They are created by microbes that live in the hotspring. Some of the thermophiles need the temperature to be above that of boiling water in order to grow.

quote:

---

I agree with the Cambrian Explosion, everything sure enough did EXPLODE during the Flood!

---

The Cambrian Explosion is misnamed. Nothing "exploded." In fact, it occurred over millions of years.Note, the Cambrian was about 542 million years ago. The "flood" was only about 4000 years ago. It would appear that you are not only a proponent of evolution, you are a proponent of hyperevolution. The problem is that if we have life mutating as rapidly as possible as is required to get the current diversity of life from the original "kinds," you wind up with every single organism of the first generation that came off the ark being a unique species and thus incapable of reproducing with any other organism on the face of the planet.Thus, all life dies after the first generation after the ark due to no new generations being born.

quote:

---

When you consider, well, all things to consider, the Flood makes perfect logical sense.

---

Incorrect. The exact opposite is true.All things considered, the flood is nothing more than a flight of fancy.If there were a global flood, there would be a flood layer in the geologic column akin to the iridium layer at the K-T boundary: The fact that we do not find such a layer is clear evidence that there was no global flood.

quote:

---

If Biblical scholars say the Flood occurred around such and such date, I cannot argue that. All of the evidence is there to support it.

---

They say it would have happened about 2250 BCE. Why do we not find any evidence of a flood from that time?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

Then take a bucket of water and pour it out into the pan from a ladder 6 ft off the ground. That impact is going to "make mountains" in your pan.

---

Irrelevant.First, where did that water come from? Again, there's only a tiny amount of water in the atmosphere. You're not taking a bucket of water but rather an eyedropper. You're not going to get a mountain out of that.Second, your process doesn't create a flood. Remember, when you're done, you need to be able to step away, leave everything alone, and have a complete flood that lasts for an hour. The flood as described in the Bible lasted for months. I'm only asking for an hour.Along those lines, your model does not follow the description. The rain stopped and the world was completely covered for 150 days. By your model, the falling rain would have uplifted the mountains which means we've got even more dry land, no global flood, and the exact opposite effect we're trying to achieve.

quote:

---

But in this model, we are invoking that "the water came out of the air".

---

Did you not read the rest of the post? If you take all the water out of the air, you don't have enough to raise sea level by even one inch. There's only 3,095 cubic miles of water in the atmosphere. We need about 3,200 cubic miles to get an inch so even if the highest elevation were only one inch above sea level, there isn't enough water in the atmosphere to cover it.And the more water you pull out of the ocean to put into the atmosphere, the lower you make sea level, which means you're exposing more dry land which is the opposite effect we're trying to achieve.There isn't enough water on the earth to flood it. That's the entire reason why we have dry land.

quote:

---

We are not requiring "the water that currently exists" to flood the dry land.

---

Ahem. The water in the air is part of the water that currently exists.There is only on the order of 10^8 cubic miles of water on the planet from all sources, including the water in the atmosphere. 97% of it is in the ocean right now. Let's see how much the ocean level would rise if all of the water that currently isn't in the ocean were to be added to it:(4000+x)³ * 4/3 * pi - 4000³ * 4/3 * pi = 0.03 * 3x10⁸Solving for x, which would be the increase in radius in miles, we get x = .045 miles, or about 236 feet.Surely you're not saying that the highest elevation on the earth just a few thousand years ago was Florida, are you?

quote:

---

"the water came out of the air" = "to add water to the system"

---

"doesn't raise sea level by even an inch" = "not enough water to flood the earth"

quote:

---

The mountains don't need to sink, and they can rise

---

But that's the exact opposite direction we need them to go. If the mountains rise, you will need even more water to cover them. We need the mountains to submerge under the water, not rise above them.

quote:

---

if there's water added to the system like the scenario that Buz described

---

But there isn't enough. There's only enough water in the air to raise sea level by about one inch: About 3100 cubic miles. Unless you're trying to say that everwhere on earth was constantly having to tread water for six hours at a time twice a day due to tidal fluctuations, there isn't enough water to do it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Except that the water in the air is part of the system coming from the land water through evaporation. The amount, even if all the water in the atmosphere were to condense, wouldn't raise the level anywhere near enough to cover the mountains. What RRhain was stating was adding water to the system from some other source

---

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

I know this is OT, but ...Fact is, you can date a rock and rocks do contain clocks (in a manner of speaking), your untenable assertion and appalling ignorance ^* notwithstanding. Feel free to start a topic and try to defend your position.-----------^*Your second sentence contains two or three major factual errors, depending on exactly how you count them. E.g., although fossils are found in metamorphic rock, the vast majority of them are found in sedimentary rock. Bet you can't figure out the other one or two.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Dollars to donuts our friend is one of those like buz, who thinks that you can stuff arbitrarily large amounts of water into the atmosphere with no inconvenient side effects such as destroying all life.Even the Institute for Creation Research gave up on that one a long time ago. In SENSITIVITY STUDIES ON VAPOR CANOPY TEMPERATURE PROFILES Vardiman and Bousselot concluded that if all factors were somehow magically optimized to maximize atmospheric water varpor content, perhaps as much as 2 meters worth of water could be held in the atmosphere without raising sea-level temperature and pressure to excessive levels.Glenn Morton's The Demise and Fall of the Water Vapor Canopy: A Fallen Creationist Idea is a fascinating read… not that our friend will read it.

Hi Architect-426,In general, continental crust is far older than oceanic crust, and probably very little oceanic crust is older than a couple hundred million years because it is eventually consumed in subduction zones. As you probably already know, the North and South American continents were once joined to Europe and Africa. There was no Atlantic Ocean. Then about 130 million years ago they broke up along a roughly north/south ridge of rising magma and the Atlantic Ocean was born. Here's a visual from Wikipedia: The Altantic Ocean crust to the west of the mid-oceanic ridge is part of the North and South American plates. That's why there's no subduction zone on the east coast of the Americas.In the same way, the crust to the east of the Atlantic's mid-oceanic ridge is part of the European and African plates, which is why there's no subduction zones there, either.The parts of the Indian Ocean near India are part of the Indian plateMost of the Arctic Ocean is part of the North American plate.Here's a map of the continental plates from Wikipedia: Moving on: Since the size of the earth cannot change, the growth of some plates by contributions of new sea floor from oceanic ridges can only be accommodated by the shrinkage of other plates through subduction. Referring to the Wikipedia map, the African plate is growing in size, but the Nazca and Pacific plates are shrinking.AbE: Plates can also shrink in terms of the area delineated by their boundaries by compression, folding and uplift, such as is occurring with the Himalayas. The motion of continents has cut the Mediterranean off from whatever ridges it formed from. If you focus on just the Mediterranean region in the animated GIF I provided above, you'll see that the Mediterranean is a small portion of a much larger ocean that was snipped off when the African and European plates collided. Wikipedia has a pretty good article about it: Mediterranean GeologyYou'll have to be specific about this before I can respond.About the Mariana Trench, oceanic trenches like this one represent subduction zones. They aren't static holes in the ocean crust that can fill up. Ocean crust entering the subduction zone is carried down into the earth. The trench is formed and continually maintained by the subduction process, the crustal surface being dragged down to form a sharp depression. No one is arguing any differently. Of course the details are a lot more complex. For example, much of the western United States is relatively young continental crust that accreted in a scraping off kind of process from the lightest portions of subducting oceanic crusts. Many ancient Pacific islands probably accreted onto the western United States over the past couple hundred million years.You claim to have looked at a number of geology books, and they probably contain all the answers to your questions.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add AbE section.

Back around or shortly before 1990, the California State Board of Education sent a visitation committee to the Institute for Creation Research in order to determine whether its science graduate degree program should keep its accredidation (they ended up keeping it, but not due to merit). The ICR pointed out to the committee that the school used the same textbooks as secular post-graduate programs used. Then they observed a class in session using one of those textbooks. The entire class was reading through it together and the instructor was telling them which parts to cross out ("But we don't believe that. We don't believe that either.")Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

I was just pointing out that your experiment from Message 69:

quote:

---

Here is an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own kitchen:

​

Get yourself a baking dish and fill it with water. Next, take a coffee cup and fill it with something so that it will not float in the water of the dish. Seal it off and then place it in the dish. Make sure that the cup is tall enough so that some of it juts above the level of the water.

​

You now have a model of the earth. The part of the cup jutting above the water line is "dry land."

​

Now, using only the water in the baking dish and keeping all of the water in its liquid state and without breaking or reorienting the cup, try to submerge the cup such that it remains underwater after you have finished doing whatever it is that you are doing for one hour.

​

You will find it cannot be done. Any water placed on top of the cup will at first expose more of the sides of the cup to air (making more dry land) and then run off the cup back into the baking dish, exposing the top of the cup again.

​

It doesn't matter how short you make the cup or how big the baking dish is. So long as there is part of the cup sticking up above the surface of the water when you start, you won't be able to submerge the cup.

---

doesn't jive with Buz's model in Message 48

quote:

---

1. Unless the earth was relatively smooth before the flood and the tectonic activity from the flood due to irregularities in the earth crust, (abe: volcanic activity) etc created the mountains.

​

2. Unless there was enough vapor in a vapor canopy over the earth to supply enough water to cover the relatively small mountains which were on the relatively smooth surface of the pre-flood earth.

---

You better round up a dozen dollars....I know of no plausible Flud^TM scenario. I was just pointing out that Rrhain's experiment was flawed.