Global Warming & the Flood

Hi Ned,Well, I guess I figure at least some geological evidence should line up with the idea of a Flood...even if parts of it must be miraculous. Thus my desire to discuss these ideas.At the same time, I do not feel a need to force this upon the public school system. And, personally, I think it is a mistake for YECs to try to come up with purely naturalistic causes and events when the Bible seems to clearly indicate that certain events (creation, the cause of the fountains of the deep, the plans for the ark, the protection of the ark, etc) are nothing less than miraculous.I do talk to people, occasionally, about such things and I like to feel fairly comfortable in my assertions. I don't want to make claims to a person, if those assertions are easily disproved all over the internet.For instance, I no longer tell people that a Japanese trawler caught a pleisiosaur carcase. That simply isn't a very defensible claim.--Jason

Hi Crash, Okay. That's an excellent point. This is precisely why I like EvC. I like to see the ideas examined...one person will notice something others don't.I think you are right about this. Walt goes on a bit about pressure building up in the water (I think). He does this to explain the initial fracture.I could go with a miraculous fracture.But once the fracture occurs, the whole thing, if I understand correctly, is supposed to be a hydraulic thing. Gravity pulls down on the outer crust. The water rushes out of the fracture. The hydraulic pressure would be tremendous...and this is supposed to be what causes the jet of water...not a sudden release of pent-up "water pressure."At any rate, the water rushing out of the fracture erodes the walls of the fracture (or breaks off large pieces).Does this help...or do I make things worse?--Jason

Hi Jar,Well, I find that an interesting idea, actually.--Jason

You shouldn't.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't think Walt proposes that the asteroids or of terrestial origin. He does however propose that comets and meteorites are.We do have meteor showers with some frequency....would that fit into the idea in any way?The comets pass near us. Wouldn't it be possible that interaction with the other heavenly bodies would cause the returning comets and meteors to not necessarily intersect perfectly with the earth's path?--Jason

Right. And what Walt doesn't remember, or chooses to ignore, is that water is incompressible. It's impossible for pressure to "build up" in the water because water doesn't store pressure.If fluids stored pressure, were compressible, hydraulic machines could not operate. (Or rather they'd operate under a different principle of energy transfer, like pneumatic machines.) It's like having a rubber lever. It just doesn't work. (The energy goes into the elastic compression of the rubber lever, not into work at the other end.) Enormous, yes; but only equal to the mass of the crust times the distance it travels (movinga a weight is what physicists call "work"). And therefore only sufficient to propel an equal mass of crust the same distance that it fell. (Slightly less in our entropic universe.) In other words if the remaining crust is pulled down 100 meters, then the ejecta crust only travels 100 meters.And it's actually worse for you. You're talking about ejecting not only an equal weight of crust but a substantial amount of water, as well. The work done by a falling weight won't move a larger weight a greater distance. It's pretty basic physics. Gravity pulling down on the continents does an enormous amount of work, but not enough to do what you propose, even ignoring friction like I have been. Honestly? Neither. You're raising exactly the points I guessed you would, and that I had tried to head off in previous posts. Apparently I haven't been clear enough.

Crash, I really want to thank you for the analysis here. Actually, there is no need for any equations, then (ahem...sorry, rahvin). Not as long as the model is as I proposed it...working only with only hydraulic pressure and blasting out of orbit a mass equal to what remains.I see it just wouldn't work at all.(I still believe in the Flood, the fountains of the deep, and the 40 days and nights of rain, of course)--Jason

Jar,Still, though, you've inspired me. Who knows...this might cause me to come up with another model for Rahvin and Crash to "examine."I'm half-serious.--Jason

Hey, no problem. Not to be insulting but I can't use science against a position you didn't arrive at scientifically.

A few do. Many more never get close - like never closer than Neptune does, in the case of Kuiper Belt Objects. Those are just comets that haven't been perturbed into the inner solar system yet, and there are apparently several trillions of them.

You really shouldn't. It's a scenario just like all of the others, the earth becomes a sterile, dead ball. Just check on the calories needed to turn the water into steam, and stop to realize the same calories will be released when you turn the steam back into water.Sorry, but the Fountains of the Deep is simply a really, really, really stupid idea no matter how approached.There is simply no way it can work, period.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, as long as you recognize that this is strictly a religious belief, lacks any scientific evidence, and, therefore (as you've stated) should not be taught as science, I don't have a problem with you holding this view.I'd also like to commend you for conducting this discussion with civility and class, and staying on topic. You've set a benchmark for YECs, IMO.

...That would be very bad. That would raise the amount of energy released when the "original" crust falls. In other words, it makes the planet even more of an uninhabitable rock.I used 66% to give you a little benefit of the doubt - when arguing against someone I always try to give as much leeway as possible. If even the best case scenario is impossible, then obviously further recalculation is unnecessary. It saves time and proves my point more soundly.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

If you're actually suggesting that "half of the Earth's crust was ejected into space," you've just gone from the mathematically falsifiable into the absolutely laughable.The mass of the Earth's crust is around 1.37e23 kg. If this is the half that remained, it would have taken 8.59e30 Joules to propel an equal mass into space. That's 2.06e15 megatons.5e16 megatons would be enough to overcome the force of gravitic attraction and literally shatter the Earth into small planetoids! Not much of a difference, is it.I believe it's already been stated that your scenario could not possibly force this matter into space (matter does not "bounce" higher than it fell in the first place - the crust is not made of flubber ), but it's fun to show the actual energy required to do it if it were possible.You've literally described a Death Star scenario. Earth wouldn't just be a lifeless rock - it would be a new asteroid belt!

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.