What about altitude

I'm not sure if this topic deserves its own listing, and if that is the case then I assume Mr Moderator will do whatever voodoo it is that he does to make this thread move somewhere else or simply disappear. But in reading through quite a few of the other threads, I have never seen this issue addressed. There have been a few threads going in the other direction. That is to say, there have been discussions dealing with deep water marine organisms and their rapid evolution, but I have not found anything that deals with high altitudes.It will take a giant leap of faith (so to speak) to even discuss this, but I have noticed that on numerous occassions, we (evolutionists) have allowed the creationists to make impossible claims in order to keep the debate going. For example:1. Where did all that water come from?
2. Where did all that water go?
3. How did all the animals get to the ark?
4. How did all those animals fit on the ark?
5. How did all those animals disperse so quickly after the flood?Their explanations for each the above examples can easily be disproven, but we (evolutionists) will simply point out those facts and then forge ahead. In the spirit of fair play, I would ask that you please grant me the same courtesy and continue to allow numbers 1-4 to be events that did occur.If so, then we would have Noah and his kin on a floating menagerie bouncing around on the open ocean. Ok, fine...impossible...but let's just say it happenend. If all the mountains were covered by at least 20 feet of water, then Noah and his boat load of passenegers were floating around at an altitude of nearly 29,000 feet. We can argue one way another over a few feet (Everest is increasing in altitude at a rate of about 1/4 per year) but creationsists claim that all mountian peaks were covered, and last time I checked, Mt Everest was at an altitude of 29,035 feet.I personally have never been on Mt Everest, but I have read some books and watched some fascinating documentaries about the difficulties of trying to reach the summit. There are many obstacles one will encounter at high altutiudes that need to be overcome and the following list is just but a small fraction:1. Temperature. The average daily temperature at the summit of Mt Everest during the warmest month (July) is still a whopping -19 Celsius. And it NEVER gets above freezing. I hope Noah had some warm cloths. What about hummingbirds...how did they survive the bitter cold. For that matter, what about tropical animals in general?2. Acute Mountain Sickness (AMS). Your average, in shape, young recreationalist will start to show symptoms of AMS at altitudes as low (high?) as 8,000-14,000 feet. Only experienced climbers can ascend safely above 14,000 feet (after a period of many days of acclimatization) and only a select few of those can journey above 18,000 feet (and most of them use supplemental oxygen because of the low atmospheric pressure). And we're still 11,000 feet below the summit of Everest.3. High Altitude Pulmonary Edema (HAPE) and Hight Altitude Cerebral Edema (HACE). Both of these are very serious types of AMS that are fatal if left untreated. And guess what the primary treatment is? That's right, you guessed it...an immediate descent in altutide. Kinda tough to do when you're on a boat that is already at the lowest possible elevation.4) Have you ever watched a climber walk at those altitudes? The current speed record for an ascent (starting from base camp at 17,500 feet) is 12 hours 45 minutes, and was set by a Sherpa. I could be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure Noah wasn't a Sherpa nor was he (or anyone one else on board the ark for that matter) acclimatized to high altitudes. Now, according to my calculations (and please feel free to check them, I do not claim to be a mathematician), that's an average pace of 15ft per minute. And I can assure you that the pace was much faster at base camp than it was during the last 1000 feet or so. I can just picture poor ole Noah and his family, trying to care for all those animals while only being able move around at 3-5 feet per minute. All that daily work to do at such a slow pace...while also suffering from AMS, which will certainly kill him and his family in just a few days if the flood waters don't recede.Well, that's enought for now. There are plenty of other obstacles that Noah and his family (and all the other animals on the ark) would have to deal with regarding high altitude survivability. If someone out there can explain to me how they all got past even the few things I'v mentioned, I would aprreciate it.

Mr. Flies:
You pose some very interesting questions indeed. But I guess my mind dwells on more earthly matters. Like manure management for instance. How the heck did Noah and his boys manage the animal wastes that must have been generated over those forty long days and nights aboard the SS Poopdeck? And no wonder Noah, an otherwise clean living, sober individual immediately upon disembARKing, set up a wine press and went to drinking!

... Waiting for a certain creationist author who has a penchant for writing under a pseudonym of the opposite gender to be invoked in a relatively hit and run manner.In 3... 2... 1....------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-05-2003]

No offense, and I'm no creationist, but this is stupid. Obviously rising global floodwaters would have raised the atmosphere. If the ark is floating on the global sea, they're not at 29,000 feet above sea level - they're at 0 feet above sea level. Isn't that obvious?Now, when the Ark lands on the mountain, and the waters recede to normal levels, then you might have a problem - at that point, they really are in high-altitude air. Coming down from that mountain might be a challenge.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-05-2003]

Well, if we're gonna get specific about this, I think it would be reasonable to expect some decrease in atmospheric pressure for the simple fact that as the global sea level rises, the total surface area of the planet will increase also. Therefore you would have the constant atmospheric mass distributed over a larger volume and thus a decrease in pressure would result. Still, in order to make a meaningful comparison we'd need to know what the atmospheric pressure would be on the surface of the waters assuming they had risen 29,000 feet, and I know it wouldn't be equivalent to what a person experiences at 29,000 feet above today's sea level. I'm sure it's somewhat simply calculatable, but I don't know where to get the appropriate figures, nor do I care enough to be bothered.

The biggest problem is actually the *increased* (intensely increased) pressure before the water falls - if it is being suspended in the atmosphere, it is adding to the atmosphere's mass. It additionally needs heat to keep it as a vapor, and the higher the pressure, the more heat it needs. Thus, for any measurable fraction of the water to have come from suspended water vapor, Earth would have to be a figurative pressure cooker.Of course, since creationists haven't started getting into this yet, I'm not going to bring up heat exchange and potential energy issues yet.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I wonder which suffered the most ... the freshwater species that were poisioned by saltwater or vice versa? And then of course we have to consider the magnitude of evolution of fish species that must've occured immediately after the Deluge due to the vast changes in habitat that the surviving fishes had to rapidly adapt to. Oy, it boggles the mind ... the wonderment of it all.

Well, that's certainly true. But I hardly think an expansion of the diameter of the earth of about 50,000 feet is going to make much of a difference in surface area. I would be very surprised if the mean air pressure at sea level changed even 1%.

Well... I was sort of going along with Walt Brown's squirt-gun Earth model that puts all that water beneath the Earth's crust before the supposed flood, not suspended above the atmosphere.

You could be totally correct. I was just picking nits.

My following statements will all be acording to assumptions that the Genesis record is true.1. According to the Biblical record there was no direct sunlight to make a rainbow before the flood. This also corroborates with the fact that the earth was watered by mist then.
2. Living creatures lived much longer, implying the climate and other conditions were conducive to such.
3. No direct sunlight calls for a vapor canopy over the earth. Nobody knows how dense it was or high it would've extended into the atmosphere.
4. There was considerable underground water which was broken up during flood.
5. For this to happen, there had to be immense seismic activity.
6. For there to be a canopy and lots of water underground, it is likely that there were no large oceans and they weren't nearly as deep.
7. There were no high, I say high mountains before the flood, so forget 29000' deep water.
8. Something had to give below the flood waters with the areas of thin earth crust, especially where the underwater cavaties broke up to emerge with the flood waters.
8. Possibly the oceans water was less salty and present salt water life possibly microadapted to it as it slowly increased in salinization.
9. The Poles would've frozen quickly, leaving them with much more ice than is present at them. Huge glaciers would've likely shifted around doing all kinds of mass continental and oceanic excavation in the process. The Oceans would've risen slowly to their present level as the glaciers moved and melted to lower warmer locations. This would give time for creatures to migrate worldwide as they multiplied.
10. The sun showed brightly enough immediately after the flood to produce a rainbow, so most, I say most of the water formerly upstairs is now downstairs.Well, there's my take/hypothesis on how things became what things are now observed. Don't ask me to prove it. Take it or leave it for what it's worth to you.

WHat I would like to know is why you believe it, what makes you conclude that these things are true?Brian.

quote:

---

2. Living creatures lived much longer, implying the climate and other conditions were conducive to such.

---

It doesn't matter what environment you put a person in, they won't live anywhere close to that long.

quote:

---

3. No direct sunlight calls for a vapor canopy over the earth. Nobody knows how dense it was or high it would've extended into the atmosphere.

---

It can't be even remotely a major portion of the flood, or it would have parbroiled everyone alive. And plants... did they evolve to the present diversity of plants that need shade and plants that need sunlight later?

quote:

---

4. There was considerable underground water which was broken up during flood.

---

And evidence of exposure of the lithosphere is... where? And this water wouldn't be superheated.... why?

quote:

---

5. For this to happen, there had to be immense seismic activity.

---

When the island of La Palma alone collapses, the tsunami it will release should wipe out the entire eastern coast of the United States. *How much* mass displacement are you proposing?

quote:

---

6. For there to be a canopy and lots of water underground, it is likely that there were no large oceans and they weren't nearly as deep.
7. There were no high, I say high mountains before the flood, so forget 29000' deep water.

---

Yes. Just 50,000 foot deep chasms that form in the flood over much of the world from catastrphic crust failure with a release of potential energy enough to parboil the planet.

quote:

---

8. Something had to give below the flood waters with the areas of thin earth crust, especially where the underwater cavaties broke up to emerge with the flood waters.
8. Possibly the oceans water was less salty and present salt water life possibly microadapted to it as it slowly increased in salinization.

---

That's impressive hyperevolution that you've got there, especially given the number of structures that need to change. And delicate corals managed... how? And the entire reef ecosystems (for which a misplaced starfish alone can wreak havoc) all magically balanced in this superheated megatsunami-laced canyon-carving miles-of-sediment-depositing megastorm right near the surface, and gently set down? I suppose that all land creatures were adapted to the same climate (hey, they all lived on the same ark, and had to travel through the same terrain to get there!), and those had hyperevolution too to be able to handle the diverging climates?

quote:

---

9. The Poles would've frozen quickly, leaving them with much more ice than is present at them. Huge glaciers would've likely shifted around doing all kinds of mass continental and oceanic excavation in the process. The Oceans would've risen slowly to their present level as the glaciers moved and melted to lower warmer locations. This would give time for creatures to migrate worldwide as they multiplied.

---

How much time are you allocating for glaciation, and how do you explain evidence of warm climates in between them?

quote:

---

10. The sun showed brightly enough immediately after the flood to produce a rainbow, so most, I say most of the water formerly upstairs is now downstairs.

---

Sorry - there aren't huge reserves of water under the earth. Try again.

quote:

---

Don't ask me to prove it.

---

I would never ask that, Buz. I would just as you to reason through the evidence and questions raised instead of just leaving.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

What about the millions of species of insects? How is it possible that Noah and his family were able to produce the exact right environments for each one to survive? Or a bigger question how did they get from where the art landed all the way to where they are now? I may be wrong but I’ve never heard of a fly crossing the Atlantic Ocean not to mention worms.

Brian why I believe the Bible would require a thread, as there's a number of reasons, including the fulfilled prophecies, the geological possibilities for what is observed geophysically, cause and effect, personal experiences which enforce the Bible, how the Bible influences nations positively, etc.