The Flood = many coincidences

I'm done with this thread so long as I am not allowed to debate my position which is the Biblical creationist position ascribed to by the minority constituency.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

You are allowed to debate your position Buz. You know the rules: evidence and careful logic.The only reason for you to run from the thread is because you don't have those. When you do you are more than welcome to post.Edited by AdminNosy, : author correction

With all due respect for your authority, AdminNosy, you are debating against the prominent creationist POV as an admin.1. To my knowledge, the answer to where all of the water was before 200 million years ago has not been addressed.2. The hypothesis of the greenhouse canopy has not been empirically falsified by the majority POV. I well remember those debates and a lot of questions which nobody but nobody can empirically answer remain unproven.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Well, ignoring evidence will cause you to claim that nobody has a)answered the questions, or b)refuted them.There's also the slight problem that no, you have not, to date, actually provided real evidence, only conjecture, to support your 'theories'.

From Wiki:

.
​
The scientific criticism of the vapor canopy focuses on the required pressure and temperature of the atmosphere. For water vapor equivalent to one kilometer of liquid water, the pressure at the surface of the Earth would be 100 times greater than it is now. The critical pressure of water is only 217 atm, so it is difficult to distinguish between liquid and vapor under these conditions, but either the temperature would be high (hundreds or thousands of degrees) or the density of the vapor would be more like that of liquid water than our present atmosphere. Finally, to get this vapor to condense into rain, an enormous amount of heat would have to be extracted and disposed of.
​
The idea of a canopy of liquid water or ice faces other difficulties. A stationary layer of water would, of course, not be stable and would immediately fall. An orbiting ring or shell of water or ice, even if it could be made stable for long periods and then suddenly fall, would be heated by conversion of gravitational energy during the fall, resulting in steam rather than rain. (This incidentally rules out the mammoths as evidence of a vapour canopy converting to ice at high latitudes).

I don't like long posts (too much like the Gish-gallop) so let's focus on one problem at a time.As shown by this article:

quote:

---

From this we can conclude that a cloud cover 200 miles thick would block all sunlight, leaving the world in perpetual darkness, but nevertheless could not account for a flood more than 200/18,000 = 0.0112 miles thick, or 0.0112 X 5280 = 59 feet flood depth!

---

It would seem that physics and mathematics renders the hypothetical vapor canopy impossible.This is just one of many problems with the global flood. Care to respond with actual evidence to this one point?

---

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

Hi Buz,Let me make things a little more clear for you.Your years of participation at EvC Forum have been marked by countless unsuccessful attempts to explain to you how science works, So unsuccessful were they that we no longer even try. This isn't a problem if you remain a minor contributor, but it becomes a big problem when you attempt to be one of the lead advocates for the creationist viewpoint in a thread.AdminNosy says he's willing to let you make a few more attempts at increasing the amount of focus on evidence, but if there's no improvement then we'll have to ask you to curtail your participation in this thread.Please, no replies.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I'm out of this thread. It's not worth the fuss. Perhaps someone will address the couple of evidence related questions in the short and simple link cited, and where all of the water was before the high mountains were created, including the submerged ones and before the deep oceans existed over 70 per cent of the earth as observed today.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

and, Buz, if you don't like to work a bit to support you conjectures then please don't start doing this in other science threads either.as I recall there was one question in the link you provided. That question as already been answered.The other question you have asked here is not meaningful until you support you assertions.

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.

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.

I think this model is incorrect. At least part of the "land" is deformable. Mountains rise and fall over time. If your cup can be deformed then it can be flatten out and under the water.As noted your calculations for Everest must be out of wack.

quote:

---

pinning down an approximate date, can you show evidence within this time period that may be attributed to the global flood?

---

Hi Coyote, I see your point about pinning down the exact date. Since this thread is somewhat ”open’ I guess it will be OK for me to lay down my thoughts and observations on this topic.As you know what we all are doing is conducting forensics; geological, archeological, ancestral, etc. Of course most of this will be open to interpretation. What I know, and what science cannot argue with, is the fact of the great Mesopotamian Urban Explosion. We have cities like Nineveh (modern day Mosul) Caleh, Uruk, Babylon etc. that were without question built by the descendants of Noah. These cities are profound along with the kingdoms of Assur and Babylon as well as the surrounding kingdoms of the Fertile Crescent including Canaan (modern Palestine), Egypt (Mizraim), the Cushites, etc. This is where archaeology, history and ancestry all match what is written in Scripture. No coincidences, no phony beloney, but real scientific/physical evidence that is utterly profound.The fact is that there is no ”continual’ evidence of civilization for over 10k years. If you are finding bits and pieces of the historical past, the interpretation will have a greater degree of error. But when you have cities, kingdoms, history and a huge ancestral tree as your proof, well it becomes more difficult for ”non-believers’ of the Great Flood to reason this evidence away. At this point it merely becomes an individual choice rather than a scientific ”fact’, and God clearly says ”Choose’.From personal experience working on historical buildings, I have worked on may restoration projects where we have no idea of the exact date of construction because all of the documentation has been lost! I can come close, say within 5-10% of a building built 100 years ago. Now if we take structures that were built a few thousand years ago, again the margin of error becomes even greater and is thus left to interpretation. Therefore dating such edifices or even settlements becomes ”sketchy’ at best.Again, this is what I know:1. Mankind is fallible (no need to elaborate). God is Holy.2. The Flood completely erased life on earth save 8 souls.3. The post flood settlement of the Fertile Crescent cannot be argued.4. Any ”evidence’ of continued civilization before the Flood is an interpretation and will be ”sketchy’ at best. Any such claims are merely one’s or a group of individuals who simply wish the Scriptures were not true. The only ”known’ continuously occupied settlement is Jericho, and you will note that the ”older’ Jericho is buried deep.5. The earth is a ”wreck’. If you have studied closely its features this is a simple observation. In spite of it being ”wrecked’, it is still utterly awesome!6. Geology and especially ”historical’ geology has done nothing but send out utter confusion to the general public. Fact is you cannot ”date’ a rock, they don’t have clocks (even though scientists claim so). Furthermore, radiometric ”dating’ is not possible on metamorphic rock as it is ”contaminated’, and these rocks are where the fossilized remains of earlier life are contained. So the big irony is . .the Flood actually started this grand cluster-duck of confusion amongst earth scientists!7. Any claims that life ”began’ in Ethiopia is ill conceived. If you study the geomorphology of this country you will notice it is an utter death trap disaster zone! You have every volcanic edifice under the sun along with a giant rift zone. Anything that was grunting, belching or scratching its back side was utterly vaporized by a volcanic event or the earth swallowed them up!8. Life did not begin in a volcano, it’s too dang hot!9. I agree with the Cambrian Explosion, everything sure enough did EXPLODE during the Flood!10. When you consider, well, all things to consider, the Flood makes perfect logical sense.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.ThanksEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Added a bunch of blank lines.

Hi Percy,

quote:

---

I don't know how you keep going wrong, but once again, no one was telling you there are ocean basins older than around a couple hundred million years. No one was telling you there are ocean basins billions of years old.

---

We’re obviously going around in circles here. Maybe no one here in this forum is telling me that the ocean crust is ”only’ 200ma, I did not say that. What I am saying is that major scientific/geological publications are telling me (and the general public) this ”fact’. I counted 6 science/geology books that I have that state this (along with several web sites). Rather than list those I thought it would be best to include this link to a map made by none other than NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center Marine Geology and Geophysics Division that shows these relative ”ages’ of the oceanic lithosphere or crust. You will note that the majority of the ocean crust is very ”youthful’.http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/...ld/2008_age_of_oceans_plates.pdf

quote:

---

Your passages of glib nonsense reveal that although you're able to use terms like plate tectonics and subduction and oceanic ridges, you don't understand the associated geologic processes.

---

And yes, I do understand the concept laid out by Moose (heck, it’s in every piece geology literature out there and the theory has turned into ”geo one-”o’-one’): MOM births ocean crust, crust gets on a ”conveyor’ belt like a Model T, takes a bumpy joy ride for roughly 200ma (luckily after it leaves the ridge zones the pavement smoothes out), then crashes into a subduction ditch or into a ”scrap yard’ to later get, well ”rebirthed’. Simple. Great concept. But! It does not work . . Just a few observations:1. You will note on the map that ocean crust is ”bumping’ into quite a bit of continental mass, especially along the Atlantic, Indian Ocean, Arctic, etc., and.. get off the phone because there’s no subduction zone! What’s up doc? We’ve got lots of youthful ocean crust bumping up against a bunch of geriatric rock!2. You will also notice that S. America and Africa are getting ”squeezed’ by MOM’s on both sides. Watch out . those continents just might pop out!3. The Mediterranean has some ”old’ crust (280ma), but MOM is nowhere to be found! Maybe she met Fabio and skipped town . .(mama mia!)4. The crust from the west coast of the US of A is getting older as it goes away. So, the crust is ”moving’ west . ..Ah dang it!! That’s supposed to be a susbduction zone! It HAS to go the other way! Hurry up and change it . .5. The ”age’ of the crust increases from the MOM’s in a linear fashion, due to their time of ”travel’ of course. Pay attention because something broke their steering suspension . .in order to get to a recycling bin they have to turn or spin!Here is some further entertainment. Lets run another example to ”test’ those subduction bins:Let’s take a section of the Mariana Trench. It is approximately 25 miles wide at its ”mouth’ and is 6.7 miles deep. So let’s take a 25 mile long section and see just how much oceanic sedimentation buildup will get ”scraped’ off over time as the slab is ”pulled’ down into the abyss:” The volume of this 25mi x 25mi V-shaped section is roughly 2094 cubic miles.” From our earlier example which calculated the ”average’ speed of ”crust coasting’ after a section leaves MOM, we will use the distance of 12,626 miles.” Average depth of ocean sedimentation is .4 miles, and of course due to the enormous pressure it will stay ”glued’ to the basalty crust thus riding along the lengthy journey.” After 200ma, 126,260 cubic miles of sediments would have been ”transported’ into the bin. Thus, after filling Mrs. Mariana once, we have 124,166 cubic miles of material ”buildup’ left over.” If we stacked this material directly over this 25mi x 25mi section, we would end up with a ”ocean sedimentation’ mega-highrise that is 200 miles tall or 105,600 storeys!!! Now I will be pre-selling some of the penthouse units, the floor plans are bright and open and the views of the South Pacific will be terrific!Silly? Absolutely . . I will repeat, with 100% confidence; the ocean crust, or 70% of the face of Gods green, watery planet, is 3.2 billion years younger than the continents. (give or take a few mil). Case closed.Suggestion: gather all the earth scientists together and have a big BBQ. Invite Barry Manilow for some entertainment. Throw some basalt, granite and gneiss on the pick-nick table and ”hash out’ just how old those rocks are. When everyone gets done, then perhaps they can publish some information that is actually plausible instead of laughable, so that people like me won’t make an utter ”laughing stock’ out of the plate tectonic THE-O-RY.Thanks Percy.Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : changed headingEdited by ARCHITECT-426, : can't spelEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Added a bunch of blank lines.

So where are these claims that the ocean crust is more than a couple hundred million years old? Even your own link here agrees that the crust is less than 300 million years old. So where is this claim that it is more than that? Here is a Map of Major Global Subduction Zones.There are subduction zones where you claim they aren't. There's clearly a subduction zone on the west coast of S. America. I don't see a problem here. There is no subduction nor creation going on here. Its just old sea floor sitting there. In the link above, there is a lack of a subduction zone on the middle section of the west coast of the US. Meh. Not so much. Whoopty do. Nobody is saying otherwise Your original claim was this:

quote:

---

According to mainstream geology, the oceanic crust is ”only’ 200 million years old or so while the continents are a whopping 3.5 billion years. So, I’m curious what might have been ”holding up’ the oceans for approx. 3.3 billion years before the ocean crust, or 70% of our planet, was ”born’? Anybody got any ideas???

---

The oceans weren't "held up". Its just that the ocean crust gets sucked down by suduction and then reborn in the faults. It should be younger than the continents.You have not exposed any problem with current theory.

Message content hidden (use "Peek" to see it) and signature shut off.This started off and largely has been a geology topic. Noah and his descendants are off-topic.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Message content declared "off-topic"