Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-19-2017 9:53 PM
373 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, kjsimons (3 members, 370 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume:
Total: 819,124 Year: 23,730/21,208 Month: 1,695/2,468 Week: 204/822 Day: 79/69 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
19NextFF
Author Topic:   Some water measurements for the Flood
Faith
Member
Posts: 26273
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1 of 276 (729812)
06-19-2014 6:25 AM


Because of the thread about the water contained in ringwoodite in the mantle, which has creationists wondering if this explains where all the water went after the Flood, I got curious about how much water would have been contributed to the depth of the Flood waters by the forty days and forty nights of rainfall that occurred at the beginning—apart from that contributed by the “fountains of the deep” which would have been considerable but incalculable as far as I know.

So I looked around for information on measuring rainfall and found this Weather Underground blog the most informative for my purposes:

What is the Most Rain to Ever Fall in One Minute or One Hour?

The rainfall at the beginning of the Flood is supposed to have been worldwide and continuous and very heavy. How heavy I don't know, but there is one extremely heavy rainfall recorded for the US at over an inch a minute in Unionville, Maryland according to this blog, so I simply computed from an inch a minute and got some pretty hefty numbers.

An inch a minute all over the earth would be
Sixty inches an hour or five feet an hour
Ten feet in two hours, twenty in four, forty in eight,
120 feet in 24 hours. Or 4800 feet by the end of the forty days and nights of the rainfall. That would pretty well cover the pre-Flood mountains which weren’t anywhere near as high as the mountains we have now that were formed by tectonic force.

Please correct my arithmetic if necessary.

Since that's an extreme rate of rainfall, although for all I know it's close to what actually happened, I figured I should consider a lower rate as well. An inch an hour would still be a heavy rain as we know it, so I computed that too. That's of course 24 inches or two feet in a 24-hour day. That's 60 feet in a month or 80 feet by the end of the forty days and nights.

Something between the two rates might be the best guess.

This may be a rather thin topic for a thread but I'm not sure how to flesh it out.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : Change "rainful" to "rainfall"


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NoNukes, posted 06-19-2014 10:43 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 06-19-2014 11:33 AM Faith has responded
 Message 5 by ringo, posted 06-19-2014 12:24 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 06-20-2014 5:20 AM Faith has responded
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 06-20-2014 3:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12527
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 276 (729814)
06-19-2014 10:05 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Some water measurements for the Flood thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9912
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 3 of 276 (729815)
06-19-2014 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
06-19-2014 6:25 AM


What are you trying to demonstrate here? That there is sufficient volume of sky in order to produce the Noahic Flood? Nobody disputes that.

The problem with this bunch of nonsense, given that you are not taking into account the "fountains of the deep", is the water cycle. Rain water comes from evaporation from lakes, oceans, etc. So you cannot raise the level of water generally on the earth using rain. All you can obtain is local flooding that will remains until the run off reaches the oceans. But once the water is at sea level, then there would be no runoff time. No more rise in sea level. No possibility of the water covering whatever "little mountains" you believe existed only a few thousand years ago.

You are going to have to produce a natural or super natural source of water in order to create a global flood using rain. I'll leave your silly extrapolation of local rainfall over a few hours to global rain fall over a month and a half for someone else to deal with.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 6:25 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15911
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 4 of 276 (729819)
06-19-2014 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
06-19-2014 6:25 AM


Your math is correct.

But I thought there were two sources of flood water: rain and the "fountains of the deep."

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 6:25 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 6:07 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13622
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 5 of 276 (729821)
06-19-2014 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
06-19-2014 6:25 AM


Faith writes:

120 feet in 24 hours. Or 4800 feet by the end of the forty days and nights of the rainful. That would pretty well cover the pre-Flood mountains which weren’t anywhere near as high as the mountains we have now that were formed by tectonic force.

Please correct my arithmetic if necessary.


Your math is okay - and I've seen five inches of rain in fifteen minutes myself so your rate doesn't seem unreasonable.

However, your mangling of the Bible is atrocious. It says nothing about tectonic forces building mountains during the flood. What you need is enough water to reach the highest places where people were living. (Technically, the Bible says "all the high mountains" but we can reasonably lower the water level by a few thousand feet without having any escapees.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 6:25 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3960
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 6 of 276 (729825)
06-19-2014 1:08 PM


Your math is sort of correct, but you have assumed an inexhaustible supply of water to form rain. T'ain't so and t'wasn't so. All the water in the atmosphere today is 3,095 cubic miles (How much water is there on, in, and above the Earth?). The Earth's surface area is 196,900,000 square miles. Dividing one by the other we see that if we took all the water out of the atmosphere and deposited it as liquid on the Earth's surface it would be 0.00016 miles thick, or approximately 1 inch thick. Not much of a fludde.

Oh, but it was different back then, right? Well, water was water and conservation of energy was conservation of energy and thermodynamics was thermodynamics or else life anything like we know it would be impossible. The most promising calculations by a YEC for shoving more water into the atmosphere (and unavoidably raising the temperature and pressure at the Earth's surface) were Sensitivity Studies on Vapor Canopy Temperature Profiles. The abstract says:

quote:
Temperature profiles under a water vapor canopy were studied to determine their sensitivity to variations in factors other than water vapor content. The solar constant, albedo, solar zenith angle, cirrus cloud thickness, and cirrus cloud base height were each varied independently from about 50% to 200% of their normal values and the equilibrium vertical temperature profiles determined. A vapor canopy containing about 0.1 meters of precipitable water was assumed in all cases. Surface temperatures were affected most strongly by changes in the solar constant. A 50% reduction in the solar constant reduced the surface temperature under the canopy from 335 K to 240 K. Changes in albedo, solar zenith angle, and cirrus cloud thickness also produced strong effects on surface temperature. However, none of the effects were so dramatic that the concern over limitation on water content in the canopy by hot surface temperatures was eliminated. If all five parameters were to be introduced into the model simultaneously such that the surface temperature was minimized, it is estimated that the precipitable water content of the canopy could possibly be raised to as much as 2.0 meters.

So if everything were carefully tuned for maximum atmospheric water content without destroying all life and then all that water rained out it would cover the Earth to a depth of 6.6 feet! Wowie kerzowie, that''s a fludde-and-a-half, huh?

In fairness the same author published Temperature Profiles for an Optimized Water Vapor Canopy in 2003. The abstract:

quote:
Calculations of equilibrium temperatures under a water vapor canopy which minimizes the greenhouse effect show that if the solar constant was less than 25% of today’s value the surface temperature would be livable. In fact, for a solar constant approaching 1% of today’s value it appears that a dense water vapor canopy would be necessary to avoid the entire atmosphere, including the oxygen and nitrogen, from precipitating to the surface as snow. If appropriate conditions can be demonstrated which justify the assumption of a much lower solar constant than typically studied, these calculations could revive consideration of an early Earth covered by a water vapor canopy.

But he neglected one importing item: how much water could be contained in the atmosphere in any of his scenarios? Nobody cares if you think lots more water could be held in the atmosphere unless you can demonstrate how much more. All his modeling in that paper was based on holding enough water in the atmosphere to cover the Earth by 10 cm (4 inches). Hardly worth the bother, right?


Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 7:11 PM JonF has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26273
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 7 of 276 (729831)
06-19-2014 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
06-19-2014 11:33 AM


two sources
Yes, there were supposedly two sources, the rainfall and the "fountains of the deep" but there's no way to calculate the latter that I know of, besides which I have a problem imagining how something that came up from below could have raised the level of the ocean. It would have to have left a space beneath the ocean floor to do that.

But perhaps something like that happened, I don't know. If something like that happened it would contribute to explaining how the sea floor could have dropped at the height of the Flood to permit the water to drain back into the ocean basin. I admit that all this sounds physically impossible, but nobody knows what actually happened and it would fit with what the Biblical account says.

So if something like that happened then whatever the rainfall contributed would just be a portion of the total, reducing the rate of the rain which would help as far as the ark's wellbeing is concerned, but there's no way to know how much either source contributed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 06-19-2014 11:33 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Tangle, posted 06-19-2014 6:20 PM Faith has responded
 Message 11 by Diomedes, posted 06-19-2014 7:12 PM Faith has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5038
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 8 of 276 (729832)
06-19-2014 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
06-19-2014 6:07 PM


I dunno Faith, maybe it was....a miracle?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 6:07 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 7:09 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26273
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 9 of 276 (729833)
06-19-2014 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tangle
06-19-2014 6:20 PM


I'd have no problem considering it a miracle if the Bible did, but it doesn't.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tangle, posted 06-19-2014 6:20 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-20-2014 6:42 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26273
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 10 of 276 (729835)
06-19-2014 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by JonF
06-19-2014 1:08 PM


What drives you all crazy about (YEC) creationist attempts at science is that we insist on fitting it into the Biblical account. That's the whole enterprise of Biblical creationism. Where there is a contradiction between science and the Bible, which there is when it comes to current scientific calculations about the past, we put the Bible over science and you do the opposite.

Since there is really no way to actually prove anything about one-time events in the past – WHICH YOU ALL REALLY SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE IN ALL FAIRNESS -- it all remains conjecture and speculation, no matter how reasonable in some cases, and we're going to continue to put the Bible above whatever calculations you come up with that contradict it.

So it's all very interesting to read how one creationist calculated temperatures in relation to the canopy idea, but if it doesn’t convince you it doesn’t matter. Anything any of us comes up with, including your answers, HAS to conform to the Biblical account or we're not going to accept it, though we’re always willing to adjust the scientific aspect where it clearly needs adjusting as long as it doesn’t violate the Biblical account.

We do this about the Flood because there is nothing in the Biblical account to suggest it was anything but a natural occurrence, although, yes, circumstances were different enough to require a non-uniformitarian point of view to understand it. I have no objection on any other grounds to regarding it as a miracle: The Bible doesn’t so YECs don’t.

If the science doesn’t work then we need to adjust the science. The Bible says it rained forty days and nights. If your calculations don't provide enough water for that to have happened, too bad for your calculations. We’re talking the Creator God here, you can’t compete, sorry.

I suppose that makes this whole thread futile too. For my purposes I got some idea at least of how a heavy rate of rainfall could all by itself cover the pre-Flood mountains. I thought that interesting even if you can't find enough water in the pre-Flood atmosphere to make it happen.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : punctuation correction

Edited by Faith, : To add YEC to creationist

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by JonF, posted 06-19-2014 1:08 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by JonF, posted 06-20-2014 7:57 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 660
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 11 of 276 (729836)
06-19-2014 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
06-19-2014 6:07 PM


Re: two sources
Faith writes:

But perhaps something like that happened, I don't know. If something like that happened it would contribute to explaining how the sea floor could have dropped at the height of the Flood to permit the water to drain back into the ocean basin. I admit that all this sounds physically impossible, but nobody knows what actually happened and it would fit with what the Biblical account says.

I am afraid the scenario you describe is not tenable based on the description.

As we all agree from the standpoint of what the biblical account describes, the flood had two sources: the rain and the fountains of the deep. The degree to which each contributed to the actual volume of water is unknown, as Faith indicated. However, we can look at the end result, which was a flooded Earth and then take it from there.

Now, as per the biblical account, the Earth is flooded. i.e., all land masses are entirely covered by water to a level that matches 'the highest peaks'. How tall these peaks are is something Faith says does not necessarily reflect the height of the tallest mountains today. i.e. Mt. Everest. So fine, let us go with a notion that the tallest peaks were much smaller. Let's say, 100 ft.

So here we are. The Earth is flooded to a varying depth no less than 100 ft.

So now, what happens to the water? As anyone who is familiar with the properties of hydrodynamics, water, like most liquids, will reach a certain state of equilibrium if we are at some point where no other forces are being applied. The only source of water removal at this point is evaporation.

Now as was mentioned in another thread, we already know the maximum amount of water that can be held in our vapor canopy. The total water can only account for approximately 1-6 inches of water removal from the total water volume that has resulted in the flood. So assuming that evaporation now takes effect, the resultant water level of the Earth would only drop by a depth of 1-6 inches. Thus leaving, using my depth assumption above, over 99 feet of water still covering the tallest peak. There is no way for this remaining water to go anywhere since the fountains of the deep, which were holding this water (allegedly) are now 'opened' and if the force they applied was a net positive, there is no balancing force to draw the water back. That would require suction.

So now, we have poor Noah floating on his boat still looking for land. And it is nowhere to be found.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 6:07 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 7:30 PM Diomedes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26273
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 12 of 276 (729837)
06-19-2014 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Diomedes
06-19-2014 7:12 PM


Re: two sources
So here we are. The Earth is flooded to a varying depth no less than 100 ft.

So now, what happens to the water? As anyone who is familiar with the properties of hydrodynamics, water, like most liquids, will reach a certain state of equilibrium if we are at some point where no other forces are being applied. The only source of water removal at this point is evaporation.

But since evaporation can't explain the removal of that much water in a period of something like five months we need another explanation. Which is where the dropping of the sea floor becomes a possibility. Creationists have to use their ingenuity to come up with such explanations. It would be nice if our opponents would exert a little of their ingenuity in the same direction once in a while rather than being content with the first piece of debunkery that strikes them.

Now as was mentioned in another thread, we already know the maximum amount of water that can be held in our vapor canopy. The total water can only account for approximately 1-6 inches of water removal from the total water volume that has resulted in the flood.

But "our" vapor canopy is most likely nothing like the original vapor canopy that existed from the Creation to the Flood. You accepted some of the Biblical account, all you have to do is keep thinking like a creationist. Help us out here.

So assuming that evaporation now takes effect, the resultant water level of the Earth would only drop by a depth of 1-6 inches. Thus leaving, using my depth assumption above, over 99 feet of water still covering the tallest peak. There is no way for this remaining water to go anywhere since the fountains of the deep, which were holding this water (allegedly) are now 'opened' and if the force they applied was a net positive, there is no balancing force to draw the water back. That would require suction.

Perhaps that is provided by the space that might have been left beneath the sea floor as the fountains evacuated it -- a vacuum in other words.

If you're going to accept any of the Biblical account, why not all of it? The water rose for five months, sat there for a bit and then took another five months or so to drain away. Evaporation hardly seems the explanation for this so we figure it had to have some place to go and the dropping of the sea floor gives it a place to go. Not ENOUGH of a place to go, though, if we're adding a huge quantity of rain to the total volume, so we still need some creationist ingenuity to give us enough space since evaporation doesn't do it. Ringwoodite in the mantle perhaps?

So now, we have poor Noah floating on his boat still looking for land. And it is nowhere to be found.

Except of course we know it was found because the Bible says so. All we have to do is bring science into line with the Bible.

That is the creationist's Mission Impossible but of course we believe it to be ultimately possible. You are welcome to join in the effort. All it takes is discarding anything that contradicts the Biblical account and exerting your scientific imagination to finding explanations that support it.

ABE: Since supposedly the scientific imagination of an actual scientist would be better at this than our poor creationist attempts, it should be an interesting attempt worthy of your training.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Diomedes, posted 06-19-2014 7:12 PM Diomedes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Diomedes, posted 06-19-2014 7:51 PM Faith has responded
 Message 21 by NoNukes, posted 06-20-2014 5:54 AM Faith has responded

    
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 660
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 13 of 276 (729838)
06-19-2014 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
06-19-2014 7:30 PM


Re: two sources
But since evaporation can't explain the removal of that much water in a period of something like five months we need another explanation. Which is where the dropping of the sea floor becomes a possibility. Creationists have to use their ingenuity to come up with such explanations. It would be nice if our opponents would exert a little of their ingenuity in the same direction once in a while rather than being content with the first piece of debunkery that strikes them.

Faith, I already took the drop of the sea floor into account in the original assumptions. The Earth, at equilibrium post flood already had a drop in the sea floor resultant from the fountains of the deep releasing their water. Which means they cannot account for removal of the water after the fact.

But "our" vapor canopy is most likely nothing like the original vapor canopy that existed from the Creation to the Flood. You accepted some of the Biblical account, all you have to do is keep thinking like a creationist. Help us out here.

Actually, no. We know precisely what the vapor canopy was like because it is easy to calculate the maximum amount of volume of water that it can support. This was already explained to you in another thread.
And no, I did not accept some of the biblical account. I am using it as reference because that is the foundation of your argument.

Perhaps that is provided by the space that might have been left beneath the sea floor as the fountains evacuated it -- a vacuum in other words.

Please read my post again. As I stated, if the fountains released the water, they exerted positive pressure. How precisely do they now suddenly exert negative pressure?

If you're going to accept any of the Biblical account, why not all of it?

I will say it again: I do not accept some of the biblical account. I am using it as reference because that is the foundation of your argument.

Except of course we know it was found because the Bible says so. All we have to do is bring science into line with the Bible.

Riiiight. Believe the bible because it is the inspired word of god and we know that because the bible says so. Seriously, do you even listen to yourself sometimes?

That is the creationist's Mission Impossible but of course we believe it to be ultimately possible. You are welcome to join in the effort. All it takes is discarding anything that contradicts the Biblical account and exerting your scientific imagination to finding explanations that support it.

Does this require a head injury as a prerequisite? Or can it be achieved through a combination of inherent gullibility and a genetic predisposition to extreme denialism?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 7:30 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 8:38 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26273
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 14 of 276 (729839)
06-19-2014 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Diomedes
06-19-2014 7:51 PM


Re: two sources
Faith, I already took the drop of the sea floor into account in the original assumptions. The Earth, at equilibrium post flood already had a drop in the sea floor resultant from the fountains of the deep releasing their water. Which means they cannot account for removal of the water after the fact.

But that wouldn't contribute to the Flood volume, it would only move the sea floor downward as the fountains were released, the volume would remain constant. But if the release of the fountains did contribute to the increase in volume this would require the retention of the evacuated space beneath the sea floor, which I believe I said in my first comment on this subject above. Which in response to you I then posited would be the vacuum needed to supply the suction you said would be required to pull the water back into the ocean basins. We only need the vacuum to be maintained for a short period of time before the collapse of the sea floor, which then occurred at a rate allowing for the Flood waters to drain over roughly a five-month period.

But "our" vapor canopy is most likely nothing like the original vapor canopy that existed from the Creation to the Flood. You accepted some of the Biblical account, all you have to do is keep thinking like a creationist. Help us out here.

Actually, no. We know precisely what the vapor canopy was like because it is easy to calculate the maximum amount of volume of water that it can support. This was already explained to you in another thread.

Actually it was this thread I believe, but as usual you are succumbing to uniformitarian assumptions rather than thinking like a creationist and finding ways the pre-Flood canopy did support more volume than today's canopy would, which of course it had to since it rained for forty days and nights which your calculations make impossible.

And no, I did not accept some of the biblical account. I am using it as reference because that is the foundation of your argument.

Well, that's a start, you just stopped too soon as the foundation of my argument uses a lot more than the part you were willing to reference. Ah well, of course it's too good to be true that an evo would stoop to the level of a creationist.

Perhaps that is provided by the space that might have been left beneath the sea floor as the fountains evacuated it -- a vacuum in other words.

Please read my post again. As I stated, if the fountains released the water, they exerted positive pressure. How precisely do they now suddenly exert negative pressure?

By creating a vacuum in the space they evacuated that eventually causes the collapse of the sea floor, sucking the water back into the ocean basins.

Except of course we know it was found because the Bible says so. All we have to do is bring science into line with the Bible.

Riiiight. Believe the bible because it is the inspired word of god and we know that because the bible says so. Seriously, do you even listen to yourself sometimes?

Well, clearly you don't listen to what I say or you wouldn't say this sort of nonsense.

That is the creationist's Mission Impossible but of course we believe it to be ultimately possible. You are welcome to join in the effort. All it takes is discarding anything that contradicts the Biblical account and exerting your scientific imagination to finding explanations that support it.

Does this require a head injury as a prerequisite? Or can it be achieved through a combination of inherent gullibility and a genetic predisposition to extreme denialism?

It results from recognizing God as God and the Bible as His word, that's all. Since it took me until my mid-forties to believe anything other than atheistic rationalism I don't think I can be accused of anything genetic that predisposed me to believing the Bible, and I don't recall a head injury at that time.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Diomedes, posted 06-19-2014 7:51 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3536
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 15 of 276 (729840)
06-19-2014 10:55 PM


Calculations of water depth if the Earth were a current sea level sphere
With the aid of Google and seemingly quite a bit of luck, I was able to track down a post of mine from 10+ years ago.

I calculated what the water depth would be if the solid part of the Earth were a sphere of the radius/diameter of the current sea level. In other words, I brought the ocean floor up to sea level and the continent level down to sea level.

Minnemooseus, in 2003, writes:

OK, I worked out the problem.

Earth diameter = 1.27x107 m, therefore radius = 6.35x107 m
http://www.vendian.org/envelope/dir1/earth_jupiter_sun.html

Volume of the oceans = 1.3x109 km3 = 1.3x1018 m3
The average depth of the oceans = 2.5 miles = 4 km = 4000 m
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml

Sphere volume = 4/3 Pi r3

I added the volume of the oceans to the calculated volume of the earth (by the way, the oceans volumes is only about 0.1 percent of the Earth's volume, so I was taking some liberties with significant figures).

Ramming that new sphere volume back through the sphere volume formula gave me a radius increase (sea level rise) of 2560 meters.

Source=Message 15 at the "Big-Sediment vs. Little-Sediment Flood Geology?" topic

So, if I got it right, if the Earth were a current sea level sphere, the water covering depth would be about 2560 meters.

Moose


Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 11:46 PM Minnemooseus has responded

    
1
23456
...
19NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017