The Flood = many coincidences

Buzsaw writes:

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.

---

Irrelevant. So long as there is any dry land, the earth cannot be flooded. That's the entire point behind "dry land": There isn't enough water to cover it. If there were, it would be under water. Since it isn't under water, then it necessarily cannot be flooded for any significant length of time.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.That's the point of "dry land": It cannot be permanently flooded. If it could, it wouldn't be dry land but instead would be under water.

quote:

---

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.

---

Again, irrelevant. There is on the order of 10^8 cubic miles of water on the planet. About 97% of it is in the ocean and thus at its lowest point. If we were to take all of the water that currently exists in the atmosphere and condense it out, we'd only add about one inch of water over the surface, which would immediately run into the oceans and thus leave dry land. That water would then immediately be reabsorbed back into the atmosphere, and you thus cannot use it to flood the earth.It doesn't matter how much water you decide to put into the atmosphere, either. The water in the atmosphere has to come from somewhere. That "somewhere" is the ocean. This means that if you put the water in the atmosphere, you necessarily lower sea level which means you are actually increasing the amount of dry land that exists. This is the exact opposite direction you want to be doing. Your claim is that there was only a little dry land and that the water in the atmosphere would be sufficient to cover it.But there isn't enough water to do that. Let's assume that all of "dry land" has an elevation of exactly one inch above sea level. And it doesn't matter what the square footage of that dry land is. It could be an entire continent that is perfectly flat and exactly one inch above sea level or it could be nothing more than a small mound, no bigger than an area rug, but exactly one inch above sea level.In order to flood this, you need to add more water into the system such that the global sea level rises by one inch. Time for our basic geometry. The volume of a sphere is:4/3 * pi * r³The radius of the earth to sea level is about 4000 miles which translates to 253440000 inches. Thus, the volume of the earth to sea level would be:4/3 * pi * 253440000³ = 68188963498229221216196011.798132 cubic inches.In order to flood the earth, we need to add a shell of water to the surface of the earth exactly one inch high. To find the volume of this shell, all we need to do is calculate the volume of a sphere of radius 253440001 and subtract from it the volume of a sphere of radius 253440000 (which we just calculated above). The volume of a sphere of radius 253440001 is:4/3 * pi * 253440001³ = 68188964305390250658465152.295462 cubic inches.Subtracting the former from the latter, we have a volume for the shell of:807161029442269140.49732951665408 cubic inches.Converting to cubic miles, this is 3,173 cubic miles of water.But there's a problem: There's only 3,095 cubic miles of water in the atmosphere. Even if the highest point on dry land were only one inch above sea level, there simply isn't enough water to flood it all. Remember, putting more water in the atmosphere is not a help: That water has to come from somewhere: The oceans. For every molecule of water you take out of the ocean to put in the atmosphere, you necessarily lower sea level which raises the elevation of the highest point above sea leavel, thus creating more dry land.And that doesn't even begin to get into the thermodynamics required to suspend significant quantities of water in the air. To have that much water in the atmosphere and have it stay there would require the atmosphere to have a temperature on the order of 900C and have pressures rivaling that of Venus. No human could survive such an environment.It is geometrically impossible to flood the entire planet. That's the entire point behind "dry land": It is above sea level. If you could flood it, it would be flooded and thus not be dry land. Since it is dry land, it cannot be flooded for any significant length of time.

quote:

---

I believe the observed tectonic activity can be interpreted to support the above possibility as an alternative to the mainline science model.

---

Do you realize just how much energy is involved in uplift? Mt. Everest weighs approximately 3x10^15 kg. Thus, the energy required to lift Mt. Everest one meter is:E = mgh = 3x10^15 kg * 9.8 m/s² * 1 mWhich is about 30,000 terajoules. That's equivalent to about 300-600 Nagasakis. And that's only Mt. Everest. To try and raise entire continents in the amount of time given by the description of a world flood in the Bible would require so much energy to be released so quickly that the rock would liquefy.The reason why the earth hasn't melted given the tectonic activity that does, indeed, raise Mt. Everest out of the ocean is because it happens so slowly that the energy has time to dissipate. But note, that heat goes somewhere (First Law of Thermodynamics: Everything has to go somewhere): The earth is a little bit warmer because of plate tectonics.A global flood when there is dry land is geometrically and physically impossible.Edited by Rrhain, : Dropped a "1" in my exponent of the weight of Mt. Everest: 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.

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.

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.

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

I was just pointing out that your experiment from Message 69

​

...

​

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

---

Incorrect. I handle Buz's first point by pointing out that you can have as shallow a cup as you wish, so long as there is at least some of it sticking up out of the water. You did read my post, yes? It doesn't matter if the maximum elevation above sea level is only an inch. The point is that it is above the highest point of water.That's what "sea level" means: The highest elevation of water. "Dry land" is dry land precisely because it is ABOVE the highest elevation of water. Because the water cannot get any higher, there is no way to flood dry land for any length of time. If you could, it already would be.And I take care of his second point by calculating just how much water is in the atmosphere. There's only an inch. So if we take all of the water that exists on earth, including the water in the atmosphere, and dump it into the ocean, it doesn't rise by any appreciable amount: The ocean already has pretty much all the available water.Unless Buzsaw is saying that the earth had a topology equivalent to Florida such that the 3% of earth's water that isn't in the ocean would be sufficient to cover it up were it to be dumped into the ocean, then my experiment fits his description just fine:All the water that could possibly be used is in the ocean and still there is some dry land sticking up. Now, what sort of manipulation of the water can be done that keeps it liquid and doesn't destroy the cup so that after you finish this manipulation, the cup remains completely submerged for an hour?Moving the water around can get the cup under water, but it can't keep it under water once you stop moving it. And yet, that's exactly what the Bible says: For 150 days the earth was completely under water.

---

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.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

Rrhain, to clarify my position/model, it was that if the oceans were not deep before the flood

---

It isn't a question of deep. It's a question of whether or not there is land above the highest point of water.Dry land, by definition, is land that exists above sea level. It doesn't matter how deep or shallow the oceans are. So long as there is dry land, it is geometrically impossible to flood it for any length of time. If it could be, it already would be.

quote:

---

and the mountains were not high before the flood (including the submerged ones

---

You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, right? If they're submerged, they aren't mountains. Mountains are juttings of land above the highest point of water.But again, it doesn't matter how short the mountains are. The highest elevation on earth could be only one inch above sea level.There still isn't enough water to flood it. The water in the atmosphere won't cover it because there isn't enough (not to mention that it will be immediately sucked back up).

quote:

---

even the present amount of water in the oceans would cover more if not all of the surface of the earth.

---

Incorrect. Haven't you been paying attention? 97% of all the water on the earth is in the oceans. If we were to take the other 3% and put it there, too, sea level would only rise about 250 feet.That isn't enough to flood Florida.Are you saying the topology of the earth was such that there wasn't anything as tall as the Matterhorn at Disneyworld?

quote:

---

Some of the present ocean water would have been either sub terrain or as vapor as per the Biblical model.

---

Already handled. If all the water that exists anywhere on the earth were to be put in the ocean for a global flood, there still isn't enough to flood it.Are you saying the highest point on earth was no more than a hundred feet above sea level?You've got to say it out loud, Buzsaw. It is not enough to simply say that "The topology was different, with the earth being 'smoother.'" There is a hard number you have to deal with:If all the water in the world were in the oceans, they would only rise up about 250 feet.Are you saying that the highest point in the world was only 100 feet tall?

quote:

---

Again, this is to clarify my position which has not been addressed by Rrhain who apparently does not regard the depth of the water in his dish model as relevant to my model.

---

You realize that you've just contradicted yourself? Since I have shown why it does not matter, your protestations that I haven't accounted for them are irrelevant.What you need to do is actually spit out the specifics: The only way your claim can be true is if the highest elevation above sea level was no more than 200 feet.Is that what you're saying?

---

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.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

To argue that there is not enough water to cover the earth requires the assumption that the earth is exceedingly similar to today.

---

Incorrect.To argue that there is not enough water to cover the earth requires only that the eath not have a topology that makes it nothing but Florida.Again, we're talking geometry. It doesn't matter the square footage of the dry land. It only matters the elevation. If we're going to look for the water in the air to do it, then an elevation of one inch is too much. If we're going to include the ground and subterranean sources, then the elevation needs to be more than a couple hundred feet.Is there anybody claiming that the topology of the earth only 4000 years ago was such that there wasn't any place higher than the Matterhorn at Disneyworld?Because if there is, then we need to explain how Mt. Everest managed to rise five miles into the air without a) having the rocks melt from the energy required to do that in such a short time and b) having nobody notice.

quote:

---

This also assumes that the physical laws are not altered or held in abeyance by the supernatural powers in charge of the flood.

---

If you're going to invoke magic, then why bother trying to come up with a natural explanation? Why insist that we can make it flood with the water that exists on earth? "God made more water and when he was done, he made the extra go away and left absolutely no trace of it."

quote:

---

Is this a special invocation of "god-did-it"?

---

Well, "special"? Since "god did it" is the answer to so many things, I wouldn't call it that special.The problem is, those who are trying to argue the flood seem to be unwilling to use the "god did it" explanation. They want it to be mundane.

---

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.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

Why do they have to be to be covered in water?

---

Because Genesis 7 says they were. Now, it also says the water only rose 15 cubits which is only about 7 meters. Would anybody call a seven meter protubance a "mountain"? And how did the ark manage to actually be "lifted above the earth" with all those animals in a depth of only 7 meters? The draft would drag on the ground.

quote:

---

Except for the raining 40 days and nights and the opening up of the fountains of the deep and the destruction of the earth bit eh?

---

Mundane doesn't mean uninteresting. There was thundersnow in Seattle this past week.

quote:

---

How do you explain a supernatural event without a supernatural explanation?

---

By pretending it was a natural ocurrence. If it's going to be a supernatural event, let it be a supernatural event. Don't try to pretend that there's enough water on the planet to do it. Don't try to pretend that the topography of the earth was such that it was constantly being flooded by the tides twice a day.

quote:

---

Which is still effectively applying the world as we know it today ... because you are still assuming the ocean is the same

---

Incorrect. I'm not limiting myself to the oceans. I'm talking all the water that exists on the earth. That's what the discussion about the atmospheric water is about: Is there enough water in the air to flood the earth?No, there isn't. If you take all the water in the world and dump it into the oceans for a global flood, there isn't enough to actually flood the earth.Unless you decide to say screw it to the idea of a mundane explanation: God did it. Of course there isn't enough water on earth. That's because the flood waters weren't waters from the earth. They were waters from god. God created the water. No need for a vapor canopy, no need for phantom underground sources (which were already taken into account when we dumped all the water in the ocean).

quote:

---

What your argument reduces to, is that if there is land above water today, then there must be land above the water before the flood.

---

Incorrect. My argument is that if you take all the water that is available and try to cover up the land and you find that there is still dry land sticking up out of the water, then there is not enough water to flood the land. If there were, it would be flooded. Since it isn't flooded, then there isn't enough water.

quote:

---

If the way the flood is accomplished, is to make water flow up and over the land, then there is more than enough water to do the job.

---

Indeed, but nobody says that. Nobody says that the water in the oceans deformed itself to provide a uniform liquid shell of water perpendicular to every surface. That would certainly be a "god did it" response.But no, what is being argued is that there is enough water on the planet to flood the earth without any need for god to hold it in place for months on end.If you're going to invoke magic, then get off your ass and invoke the magic. Don't try to pretend that there is any rational explanation for 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.

RAZD and I respond to each other:

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

RAZD: Why do they have to be to be covered in water?

---

​

Me: Because Genesis 7 says they were.

---

​

RAZD: Genesis 7 says the mountains were lowered?

---

No, Genesis 7 says the mountains were covered. Let's not play dumb and forget your own argument halfway through a sentence.

quote:

---

So that is the amount of water that flows out of the "fountains of the deep" (aka ocean basins) to cover the tops of the mountains.

---

But nobody calls 7 meters a "mountain." And a boat made to hold that many animals would have its bottom dragging on the ground in only 7 meters of water and yet it is described as being lifted above the earth.And by the way, the "fountains of the deep" are not connected to the 15 cubits in any direct way. Instead, it is simply the dumping of all the water into the ocean.But again, I've already accounted for that. Dump all the water into the ocean, including all underground sources, and you only raise sea level by about 250 feet. So unless we're going to say that there wasn't a single place on the entire earth higher than the Matterhorn at DisneyWorld, there isn't enough water to flood the earth.Is that what you're arguing?Then where are the mountains? There aren't any in Florida. That's why for quite some time, the tallest point in all of Florida was the Matterhorn at Disneyworld.

quote:

---

And nothing says it isn't, the issue is moot where the story is mute.

---

Except the story isn't mute. It specifically states that the water "prevailed upon the earth" (meaning a flood, not a magical shell) and "rose up" (meaning a flood, not a magical shell).Remember, the ark lands on Mt. Ararat. To do that, it has to be above as the waters "abated." But if there were a magical shell of water, then there's no way the Ark could get there since it was made below that level.Unless you're going to say that god made the ark magically defy gravity.We're back to my previous comment: If you're going to invoke magic, then get off your ass and invoke the magic.

quote:

---

Such a flow would average out topography locally

---

Incorrect. A depth of 7 meters is trivially viewed. It's about the height of a two-story house. I live in the valley. The hills above me are only tower a few hundred feet. A shell of water 15 cubits would still be visible as a shell.But it isn't called a shell. It's called a flood: If you're going to abandon the text, then get off your ass and say so.

quote:

---

and the amount of earths surface you could see would look relatively uniform.

---

Incorrect. A depth of 7 meters is trivially viewed. In fact, the topography of the earth would still look pretty much the same. Nobody would say the water had "prevailed." The ark certainly wouldn't have been "lifted." And there's no way it could have managed to get up to the mountains.

quote:

---

Can you point to a creationist that believes the flood was caused by by natural processes?

---

Are you not paying attention to the conversation here? The ones saying that there was a "vapor canopy" that condensed and caused the earth to be flooded? The ones claiming that the molecularly entrapped water in the mantle somehow made it to the surface?That is the smell of attempts to make the flood a natural process. Driven by god, to be sure, but still a natural process. It's the same thing insistence we make in science: Yes, a human being put the chemical reagents together in the beaker, but the reaction happens all on its own as a natural process.

quote:

---

It's the same as the parting of the red sea. God waved his hand and it happened.

---

But that isn't what the text says: God did not wave his hand and create water. Instead, water that already existed was dumped upon the earth.

quote:

---

No, this is what you are arguing. Creationists don't really care about the mechanism, just that the flood occurred.

---

Incorrect. If that were true, why would we be arguing about a "vapor canopy"? I know I didn't bring it up. Let's not play dumb.

quote:

---

They know that god caused it, how he did it is not important to the fact (to them) that the flood occurred.

---

Then why do we have Buzsaw saying in Message 93: Why is he trying to justify a mechanism if it isn't important? You claim to be playing devil's advocate, but let's not play dumb.

---

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:

---

That's what Buz was saying, in Message 48, when he wrote:

quote:

---

1. Unless the earth was relatively smooth before the flood...

---

---

But notice that there's an "unless." He's posturing, not claiming. Great..."unless." Is he actually saying it or just implying it? We need him to actually make a claim and not just let his mind wander.That's why I said that if we take all the water in the world, including the water from underground sources as well as from the air, and dump it into the oceans, we only raise sea level by about 250 feet. If this is going to be a "flood," then that means the earth was no higher than Florida.Is that what he's saying? He needs to let us know. We cannot read his mind.

quote:

---

That's the model you've refused to address.

---

Incorrect. That's the model I've done nothing but detail: In order to flood the earth using only the water that exists on the planet, the tallest elevation can only be a few hundred feet above sea level.Thus, the question put to Buzsaw: Is that what he's saying? The entire earth was such that Florida would be the tallest elevation in the whole world?Because if that's what he's saying, then we're going to have to explain how Mt. Everest could rise five miles into the air without liquefying due to the amount of energy required.I'm willing to go there, but Buzsaw has to actually make a statement: Is he saying that the earth had an elevation no higher than a couple hundred feet?

quote:

---

Isn't the Matterhorn in California?

---

You're right. My mistake. There is no Matterhorn at Disneyworld. I'm not sure where I got that.The point still remains. The highest elevation in Florida is only a few hundred feet. Dump all the water in the world into the ocean and most of Florida goes under.Denver's still high and dry, though. Is Buzsaw saying that Denver was actually no higher than Florida? I need him to actually make that claim so that we can deal with the consequences of it. Otherwise, we're just guessing at what he's trying to say.He needs to get off his ass and say 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.

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

My argument is that the flood could be managed by a god that can divide the red sea by using similar control over water to make it cover the mountains WHERE THEY ARE, and that there is more than enough water on earth today to manage that.

---

That's not a flood, though. That's a shell. The text does not describe a shell of water...it describes a flood: If you're going to abandon the text, then get off your ass and say so.

quote:

---

Well, the mechanism already given above was that gravity was made to be perpendicular to any surface, any pendulum would point directly to any surface near it, and water would naturally flow over the land.

---

But that isn't what the text says. It says there was a flood, not a shell: If you're going to abandon the text, then get off your ass and say so.

quote:

---

It is a supernatural event. Again, if it is a supernatural event then it involves the supernatural by definition. How the supernatural event is produced is necessarily through supernatural interaction.

---

Then why is Buzsaw trying to invoke natural methods such as an earth with an elevation no higher than Flordia? If the answer is magic, then invoke the magic. Don't try to come up with natural explanations. The text says the windows of heaven were opened. That's certainly a fine place for magic water to come from.

quote:

---

Isn't this after the 15 cubits bit? So now the waters get deeper and lift the ark?

---

No. The ark rises first and then we are told that at 15 cubits, the mountains are covered: Again, an ark of that size isn't going to be afloat in only 15 meters of water.

quote:

---

Many creationists believe that the earth was quite different before the flood, and this is just part of that belief.

---

Indeed, but that's because they are trying to make it a natural process. You can flood the earth with only the water that currently exists if the earth doesn't have an elevation of more than a hundred feet. Of course, that means we have to explain how Mt. Everest rose five miles without liquefying in the process due to the energy required to do so, but the point is that they are trying to make the flood something that doesn't require magic to make happen.

quote:

---

He did not create water in parting the red sea either, just relocated it.

---

But that's a different process. The Red Sea is local, not global. Local floods are easy. It's that this flood is global that causes trouble.

quote:

---

That is still pre-flood location, not how the water was made to flood the land.

---

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the water is located. To flood the earth, it needs to be in the ocean. If you put all the water that is available into the ocean, you only raise sea level by about 250 feet.

quote:

---

Ever looked at where flotsam ends up after a flood? (and no, we're not talking tidal waves or hurricanes pushing boats inland, we're talking about (magically) settling on a high point)

---

No, not magic at all.

---

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.

ARCHITECT-426 writes:

quote:

---

Continental DRIFT is a scientific MYTH.

---

And yet, you can detect it directly. Satellite stations are set up around the globe and with GPS, you can determine exactly where a particular point on the globe is...including if it's moving.Since we can directly measure plate tectonics, why would you insist that we lie about 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.