Earth of Genesis 1:9

You might like to have all the extra water stored some place that makes sense and is in agreement with the laws of physics. Water shells cannot orbit the earth unless they are continuously sustained my an ongoing miracle. They also would block out almost all the light from the sun causing major catastrophes for life on earth.

There is an upper limit to how much water vapor can exist in the atmosphere. It is rather an insignificant amount of water compared with the oceans. Don't you think that the waters above the firmament sound like rain clouds?

There is a limit dependent upon pressure and temperature to the amount of water the atmosphere can hold. Since the pressure does not change in the atmosphere much that leaves temperature as a variable.About 0.001% of earth's water is in its atmospheric vapor normally.
reference In this reference, look towards the bottom and you see a chart for %100 relative humidity as a function of temperature.Let's use a generous factor of 100 between average earth humidity and a maximum.
Then we get 0.1% of the earth's water in the atmosphere.A hypothetical water canopy will not change the amount of water that the atmosphere can carry. It is a function of temperature and pressure. An attempt to force more water vapor into the atmosphere results in condensation.If you have ever been scuba diving you know that you do not need to dive very deep before it becomes quite dark relative to being on the surface. You have to imagine how enough light is going to reach the earth to keep it from freezing to death as well as how this water canopy can be held up and kept from boiling off into space since there's no pressure above the atmosphere.Things that orbit the earth do so in great circles. A solid shell of water has no way to orbit.

Water vapor has a partial pressure in the atmosphere. So does Nitrogen, so does Oxygen, so do any other gases present. By saturation is meant that no more water vapor can fit into the mix without condensation removing that same amount. An equilibrium exists for a given temperature and pressure.Water when it is vaporized expands tremendously in volume. So the water of the ocean becoming vaporized creates volume from the missing liquid but uses up much more volume from the new water vapor. The same thing can occur with what are normally gases such as atmospheric oxygen and nitrogen. If we cool them sufficiently we get liquid nitrogen or oxygen. Then the volume they occupied as gases is greatly reduced to a much smaller volumes as liquids as now the molecules are packed much more tightly together. It is called a phase change.If you disassociate water into oxygen and hydrogen then technically it is no longer water. It is two different gases instead. This would be an unstable situation. Remember the Hindenburg. As soon as they are combined the sky would be explosively on fire. Also you have to remember that the mass of a volume of water does not go away when it is vaporized or disassociated into hydrogen and oxygen. If you turn that much water into gas or vapor and add it to the atmosphere then the atmospheric pressure will increase to the pressure at the depth of water you vaporized from the ocean level. About every 33(46 since oceans cover about 71% of surface area) feet of depth of water taken from the ocean and added as vapor or gases to the atmosphere will add another standard atmosphere of pressure to it. So it would be equivalent to diving to whatever depth in the ocean that you wanted to put into the atmosphere. Edited by shalamabobbi, : correction due to surface area covered by ocean.

Hi ICANT,The first time I came across your peculiar interpretation of genesis you made some sort of comment that you came to that view at the age of 10 and hadn't changed your mind since.That was very telling.I believe Catholic Scientist was persistent enough to debunk the view scripturally, but that didn't matter to you.
Ironically your only hope is for God and an afterlife to exist since you won't learn anything new or be corrected in any of your perceptions until God takes it up with you personally.But then you may crucify him afresh for adding to the bible...

If you take an air mattress and lay it on a bed and push down in the center, the ends will pop up. But if you apply equal pressure to it along its entire length nothing like that happens, it is merely uniformly under more pressure.The study of soil samples indicates that mountains consist of collisions of plates not simply an uplifted crust.All knowledge is not contained in the bible. You are allowed to take a basic geology course if you like.

OK, fair enough. My apologies for missing that.You are speculating that the mountains arose due to varied pressure from above.
Before this flood you had a stasis.
Points A and B did not move under the atmosphere since the pressure was equal from above.
Now we add flood waters.
If A and B are at the same level, or nearly so which is your suggestion, (small mountains preflood), then there is no significant pressure differential due to the flood waters.These videos are a little slow and the audio a bit out of sync but give them a watch in your spare time. You don't have to accept the time scales or theories if you don't want to. Just collect the bare facts/data. It is that collection of facts/data that led early Christian geologists to abandon the biblical interpretations that held sway previously.Mountain Building - Lesson 11 - Part 1 of 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okC5S8Z9WXs&feature=related
Part 2 of 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okBTXLISEFo&feature=related
Part 3 of 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogS6pRkouiY&feature=related
Part 4 of 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq_Rw8YWCpA&feature=related
Part 5 of 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5wxvhZSWaw&feature=related
Part 6 of 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaZPpVetK3A&feature=related
Part 7 of 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjCSNQiAA2s&feature=related

That would have no effect on the pressure due to flood waters above. That is a function of the depth of the water only.What is below the crust? Is its' density much different? Is it a gas? Then is it compressible? Even though you increase the pressure on it, if you do so evenly there is no mechanism to elevate mountains with a flood.Think of a beam balance or a teeter totter. If the weight is increased a hundred fold there will still be balance if it is increased on both sides equally.Here is a link with illustrations that explain current understanding about how mountains are formed.

In the same sentence no less. This is the result of cognitive dissonance as pointed out by RAZD and others.It is not that hard to speculate what happens as this is all basic physics.The problem is that pressure from flood waters is just that, pressure. Pressure bearing on a surface results in a force.
Underwater at any particular depth there is a uniform pressure but it is acting in all directions.What this means is that for any object like a submarine for instance it will not experience any net force and move as a result of being submerged.The pressure on one side of the object and resulting forces will be offset by the forces on the opposite side and cancel out. No forces mean no acceleration, no acceleration means no motion or developed velocity.So a crustal plate will, if submerged, still be an object, albeit a large one, that experiences forces from the increased pressure that cancel out leaving no net force to effect a lateral movement.Tectonic plates move because the hot liquid interior of the earth moves and there is a drag force on the crustal plates.Simply flooding/draining the ocean basins will not create mountain like structures on the ocean floors. One is lateral pressure, force due to drag really, the other is pressure due to a vertical column of water above. They are not equivalent in any sense of the word.I doubt any geologists are going to jump in here and explain your post's errors until you show a willingness to learn instead of simply thinking in the mode of apologetics. You will continue to wander in the realm of "but what ifs" because all the criticism of creationists is self contradictory and uncoordinated presenting no unified argument, as is evidenced by the exchange between you and ICANT. The other problem of creationist thinking is the "50 first dates" syndrome. Point out an error and you think progress has been made, only to discover that tomorrow the error has been re-adopted once again.If creationists want to waste their time and energy walking down this fruitless path, it does not follow that scientists will feel compelled to waste an equivalent amount of time trying to point out the flaws and errors in creationist thinking.The responsibility is on you to make some progress. Like I said, you don't have to come to the conclusions of main stream science right off the bat. Just study the facts and make yourself aware of our current data geological and biological. When you've done that to a sufficient degree you will find it increasingly difficult to fit to a model of a 6,000 year old earth.

I'm glad to see you don't think it was created by the waters in the oceans then. Maybe Peg will disagree with you on that point? Belief in a global flood maybe? It may not necessitate YEC but it shares a lot of similar problems. Most who accept a literal flood also accept a 6,000 year old earth as well, so that is a useful frame of reference in these types of discussions.Not accepting the ToE also has the same kinds of issues whether or not you allow for long periods of time.It is one of coordinating vast amounts of data into one coordinated whole. Science is not changing its findings, it is refining them, and zeroing in on a picture that explains all the data. Accepting science does not equate with atheism.Promoting a literal interpretation of an Eve created by cloning from a rib, one of your ideas from a thread somewhere, and an actual talking snake however may create a few atheistsMaybe your "Friend" will hold you accountable for that??Edited by shalamabobbi, : white space is not your friend..

I know this is your thread ICANT so I don't want to intrude too much but..Since neither you nor Peg is YEC and you are arguing about a flood etc, maybe you could tell me when this flood occured in the history of our old earth which you say you accept.

quote:

---

Previously, pine trees in North America have been cited as the oldest at 4,000 to 5,000-years-old, however the Swedish mountains contain a cluster of around 20 spruces that are over 8,000-years-old.

---

Page not found | Metro UKThe desert creosote bush

quote:

---

In a few areas of the Mojave Desert clonal creosote rings have been found that are several yards in diameter. Near Lucerne Valley, King Clone has an average diameter of 45 feet! Using radiocarbon dating and known growth rates of creosote, scientists have estimated the age of King Clone as 11,700 years.

---

Creosote Bush - Joshua Tree National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

quote:

---

43,000 year-old living plant - The 26-foot high King holly in Tasmania the world’s oldest living plant.

---

http://www.wonderquest.com/...oldest-plant-ship-jet-race.htm
Page not found - forests.orgJust some food for thought.

Hi ICANT,Without discussing what species of plants those were and the surrounding environment this argument does not relate to a global catastrophe even as an analogy. Where did the plant life come from the first time the lake went dry? Then where would it likely have come from the next time? And what about that geologic column, you can't have it both ways. Yes that would be amazing, unless the lake was being stocked by someone?
I hope you are not offering this as a reason that fish survived the flood.Was it the saline or the fresh water varieties that survived?
And if the fish had no difficulties with the flood why is it that those varieties which the scientists assume are ancient/prehistoric are no longer around? Why did the Plesiosaur die off but not the whale for example? If the Coelacanth could do it why not the rest?And since that flood created the geologic column how did the plant life presumably buried under that sediment arrive on top again?

quote:

---

Flowering plants don't occur in the fossil record until early in the Cretaceous era.

---

refSo where did the flowering plants go that got buried by the geologic column due to the flood?

quote:

---

There is a relative order to the fossilized species of plants found in the geologic record for which Flood Geology cannot account

---

same ref All that change in water temperature "that caused the water to go someplace" would not bode well for aquatic lifeforms would it??
Also I think you might be missing the magnetude of that heat by several orders, just a hunch though. So you think that the creosote growth rate was dramatically different in the past? Is that your estimate? Or do you even have an estimate?
Here is a reference that explains the ring growth a little better with some pictures. No but a geologic column atop of it would...
the geologic column was the result of an old earth and evolution, oh wait..

So you accept the geologic column? Then you are accepting it was created pre-flood?
So fossils are created over time rather than resulting from a single catastrophic event?
So if you do not accept the ToE than God creates various life forms at distinct times?But I thought that you took the 6 days of genesis creation as 24 hr days with the exception of the 1st day being indeterminate in length, if I remember correctly.That does not leave enough time since the creation of life forms for them to end up in a geologic column.
Do you believe the fossils are remnants of previous creations? Repetative cycles of creation on earth?

Hi ICANT,Ok, let's see if I have it right.
Genesis 1:1 = Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:24
There are created men, land animals, birds, plant life. Then eventually oceans and aquatic life.
Now there is some first flood disaster picked up in Genesis 1:2. This flood creates the fossils.Everything is recreated in Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:3
Then the account picks up in Genesis 4:25 with another second man called Adam and his first son is Seth.All along the earth is flat and featureless, no mountains. Then we get to Noah with a second inundation, that although shallow kills everything except those on board the ark. This second flood does not create fossils.If the above is correct a textual problem is the first light isn't mentioned until Genesis 1:3. The text taken at face value would suggest that Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 occur in the dark. But ignoring that..Let's say this is the source of the flood waters. I give them the volume of the arctic ocean.from here we get
.0134 Arctic of total oceans. 1.06%
.6677 Pacific
.3235 Atlantic
.2597 Indian1.2643 total km^3 (x10^9)Surface area of world = 361,800,000km^2
refUnderground ocean - That covers the earth to a height of 37meters above the ocean level.
Ice caps 1.74% is another 63 metersSo total plausible depth of 100 meter rise in ocean level, that is if the ice caps etc are counted as above ocean level. If the ice cap counts ice below ocean level this would give less to work with.There still remain some problems.This still cannot account for the ordering found within the geologic column. That is the major problem that can't be surmounted. If man was on the earth from the beginning, even if it was a long time ago the problem still exists explaining how the geologic column could be formed. How can the sifting and segregation and top to bottom order happen? It is not just a matter of ages and dating.You have no mountains pre Noah's flood so presumably no collision of continents. You'd have uniformity of fossil finds everywhere rather than what is observed with differing ages exposed in different places.
It is the differing lifeforms at different times of the earth's past history that account for their order and position in the geologic column. In your model there is no evolution so there are essentially always the same animals found on earth over all ages of the earth.Another problem if such a world flood occured is it would have shown up in the ice layers, the varve layers, the dendrochronology, etc that RAZD put together in his thread. Unfortunately it's a no show.

Yes, but that water would be chemically bound. As such it is not technically water, just as water is not technically oxygen and hydrogen. The combination becomes something else just as water molecularly bound with other molecules into new larger molecules becomes something else in character and properties.I am looking for ways to get water out that don't require completely miraculous means. An underground ocean could be vacated by contact with magma turning enough water to steam to force the rest of the water out for example._________________________________________________________________________________________________________________You found an error in my post. It was late and I was looking at the reference thinking the surface area applied to the world, oceans and land areas, not just the land. Unfortunately this correction reduces the depth of rise of any water used to cover the world with flood waters.Average Radius Earth = 6,371km
surface area = 4 pi r^2
surface area to be covered = 5.1x10^8 meters squaredSo 0.0134x10^9 total km^3 divided by 5.1x10^8 gives us a depth of coverage of 26.3 meters.(checking against the previous post -dividing the surface areas gave 71%, so that reference was in error as well giving the surface area of the oceans in the last column rather than the land surface area)Adding the ice caps gives us about 71 meters of depth. Which makes sense since I used the surface area of the oceans instead of the total surface area previously._________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So if I understand your argument correctly then the different life forms came about just as predicted by science except evolution was not involved. The life forms were created at various times throughout the history of the earth.Ok sounds reasonable on the surface, this is your idea, not the view of science, so my job as a debater is not to prove your view different from science, but to see if it is self consistent or self contradictory.If you are postulating animals created along the way, that's fine. You are merely attributing their arrival on the scene to special creation rather than to evolution. There are about 530 million years of history for multicellular life forms BTW. That marks the Cambrian explosion. Previously all that time was taken up with microbial life creating oxygen, rusting the earth, etc._________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So now the problems left with your model are three that I can see.1. No gradual plate tectonics which enter into the creation of what the geology indicates happened in terms of analyzing what we see in the earth. I don't think a one time sudden movement of the plates would correspond with the facts. The creation of the Hawaiian Islands comes to mind.2. No record of evidence of a global flood exists. Lots of evidence for local floods however does.3. And the most glaring problem to my understanding is that of the moon. It does not get created in your model until Genesis 1:16 and is not not placed into position until Genesis 1:17.The isotopic ratios of radioactive elements such as U-235 to U-238 for example are due, in the earth, to some initial concentration and decay over time so that now we have a ratio of about 0.7%. If we look at moon rocks that same ratio exists there as well indicating a common origin in time.The moon stabilizes the spin axis of the earth but since the sun and the rest of the universe does not exist in your model until the moon gets created I guess that does not matter either.But here is the clincher. Fossil coral reefs show that the day was shorter in the distant past in exactly the manner predicted by a slowing of the earth's spin rate due to tidal friction caused by an interaction with... which in your model is not there to cause the change in the spin rate of the earth.Also with everything bathed in light there are no seasons or biological years for the biosphere so this contradicts the fossil coral record as well. This would also cause tree rings not to exist etc as growth does not turn on and off but is continuous.Any geologic records that show this yearly seasonal activity contradict your model.
Varve layers are yearly and seasonal with pollen captured etc going back for quite some time. Ice layers exist because of seasonal variations.So your model cannot fit the evidence as I see it.Edited by shalamabobbi, : spellingEdited by shalamabobbi, : ditto