Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8748 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-22-2017 7:12 PM
397 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Post Volume:
Total: 808,793 Year: 13,399/21,208 Month: 2,881/3,605 Week: 223/933 Day: 119/104 Hour: 0/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   Where did the water come from and where did it go?
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 1 of 300 (642537)
11-29-2011 5:09 AM


In the thread "Evidence for a recent flood", claims have been made as to the sources of the water of the flood, the "fountains of the deep" amongst other sources.

Arguments have been made that the flood was not catastrophic or violent, that water flows uphill, that the opening of the fountains of the deep doesn't mean water reaching high in the atmosphere, that water wasn't in the mantle pre-flood, but got there afterwards when the "single land mass" divided in the days of Peleg.

So many different arguments have been made, some inconsistent with others, that it's difficult to visualise the floodist's model and the various statements are scattered over numerous posts and threads.

In the distant past we've discussed this topic, touching on Walt Brown's hydroplate theory and vapour canopies etc, but it would be worthwhile to discuss this subject in light of the ongoing thread "Evidence for a recent flood". In that thread many claims are made regarding the source of the flood water. Discussion of that would be off topic in that thread (I think) and it would be useful to have all the claims together in one thread.

Geology and the Great Flood if approved.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 11-29-2011 7:29 AM Trixie has responded
 Message 8 by frako, posted 11-29-2011 8:24 PM Trixie has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Modulous, posted 12-01-2011 11:29 AM Trixie has not yet responded
 Message 26 by ICANT, posted 12-01-2011 10:29 PM Trixie has responded
 Message 48 by mike the wiz, posted 12-03-2011 3:25 PM Trixie has responded
 Message 55 by Rahvin, posted 12-03-2011 11:22 PM Trixie has not yet responded
 Message 91 by Portillo, posted 12-11-2011 12:23 AM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12500
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 2 of 300 (642538)
11-29-2011 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trixie
11-29-2011 5:09 AM


Assuming you would like evidence for where the water came from and where it went, I don't think this would be off-topic for the Evidence for a recent flood thread.

Edited by Admin, : Remove sig.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trixie, posted 11-29-2011 5:09 AM Trixie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Trixie, posted 11-29-2011 9:45 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 3 of 300 (642539)
11-29-2011 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
11-29-2011 7:29 AM


It's not so much asking for evidence as asking for the "models" proposed to be examined for plausibility with regard to current science.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 11-29-2011 7:29 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12500
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 4 of 300 (642541)
11-29-2011 4:32 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Where did the water come from and where did it go? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 5 of 300 (642547)
11-29-2011 5:10 PM


In the thread "Evidence for a recent flood", the source of the water is claimed to be the fountains of the deep. As far as I can tell, these fountains resulted from the release of water from the mantle (so the argument goes).

A rough calculation puts the amount of water required to flood the entire earth at 2046 million cubic km. To help get an idea of what that means, the Earth's crust is estimated to be 1332 million cubic km (I googled that). The temperature of the mantle ranges from 1400C to 3000C with densities ranging from 3.4 - 4.3 g/cm2.

What effect would 2000 million cubic km of superheated pressurised water have on the atmosphere, crust and life if it was released to the surface over a period of 40 days? What sort of atmospheric temperatures are we talking about here?

When water becomes steam it increases in volume by 1600 times, giving us a total of 3.2 million million cubic km. In contrast, the earth's atmosphere is estimated to be 51,000 million cubic km so the volume of steam is 62.7 times the volume of the earth's atmosphere

Edited by Trixie, : To add the steam stuff


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 11-29-2011 7:51 PM Trixie has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Rahvin, posted 11-29-2011 7:57 PM Trixie has not yet responded
 Message 145 by foreveryoung, posted 12-27-2011 11:30 AM Trixie has responded
 Message 263 by jrchamblee, posted 02-13-2012 7:02 PM Trixie has acknowledged this reply

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 699 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 6 of 300 (642575)
11-29-2011 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Trixie
11-29-2011 5:10 PM


Kent Hovind already proposed the perfect creationist model for this. It was the same amount of water as we have today. The difference is the Earth back then was more flat and soils more evenly spread out.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Trixie, posted 11-29-2011 5:10 PM Trixie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Rrhain, posted 11-30-2011 2:51 AM Taz has responded
 Message 11 by Pressie, posted 11-30-2011 5:14 AM Taz has responded
 Message 273 by Evangelical Humanists, posted 05-27-2012 6:11 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 595 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 7 of 300 (642578)
11-29-2011 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Trixie
11-29-2011 5:10 PM


I used to find topics like this interesting...but now, I'm tempted to just say that, when we're including in the proposed scenario a magical man in the sky who created the Earth and all life in 6 days and took a year to drown it, maybe naturalistic explanations just don't matter and we'll just say it was magic. After all, we don't ask where the water comes from when Harry Potter casts a water-creating spell.

“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Trixie, posted 11-29-2011 5:10 PM Trixie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Portillo, posted 12-01-2011 9:15 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2694
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 8 of 300 (642581)
11-29-2011 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trixie
11-29-2011 5:09 AM


I think this is the basic creationist idea or moddel


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trixie, posted 11-29-2011 5:09 AM Trixie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by pandion, posted 11-30-2011 1:05 AM frako has responded
 Message 25 by ICANT, posted 12-01-2011 8:02 PM frako has not yet responded

    
pandion
Member (Idle past 408 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 9 of 300 (642593)
11-30-2011 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by frako
11-29-2011 8:24 PM


Isn't it interesting that the entire video is nothing more than assertion from faith in a book of mythology without a single bit of actual evidence?

Creationist arguments in the creation/evolution debates all seem to fall into two categories:

1) The mythology of bronze age, nomadic herdsmen is scientific in nature. That is the argument offered in the video. But it is presented without any evidence. The arguments show a gross lack of understanding of what science is and how it works. In science, an assertion must be supported by evidence as the basis of an hypothesis which supports a prediction that can be tested. Creationism is assertion based on mythology that is untestable and therefore, not scientific.

2) Evolution is a religion. But, of course, not even christian evolutionary biologists attend evolutionary worship services. In fact, in science, the point is to challenge everything and to accept nothing on faith. But any challenge must be based on evidence supported by hypothesis, prediction, and testing. Empty assertion just doesn't do the job.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by frako, posted 11-29-2011 8:24 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by frako, posted 11-30-2011 7:27 AM pandion has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6096
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 4.4


(2)
Message 10 of 300 (642595)
11-30-2011 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taz
11-29-2011 7:51 PM


Taz writes:

quote:
Kent Hovind already proposed the perfect creationist model for this. It was the same amount of water as we have today. The difference is the Earth back then was more flat and soils more evenly spread out.

The problem, of course, is that it doesn't matter how flat the earth is. You cannot flood the earth using the water that already exists. If there is dry land anywhere, then that means you have to have additional water come from somewhere else. The entire reason that there is dry land is precisely because there isn't enough water to cover it up.

The amazing thing about sea level is that it is the lowest you can go and still be on the "surface". Water necessarily rushes downhill to the lowest level it can get: Sea level. Thus, dry land is necessarily above and beyond what the water can cover.

The reason we can have a local flood with the water we have is because we take it away from somewhere else: To flood point A with water, you have to take it away from point B. Therefore, it is physically impossible to flood the earth with the water we already have.

You can try this for yourself. Get yourself a baking dish and a big sheet of foil. Put some weight in the foil so that it's heavy and crumple it up into a ball and place it in the baking dish. Now, fill the dish with water so that it comes up but does not completely cover the lump of foil.

Now, try to flood the lump with the water that's currently in the dish such that when you leave it alone for a minute, it remains completely flooded. You'll find that it can't be done. It doesn't matter how you manipulate the water or how little the lump of foil peeks up over the surface of the water. You might achieve a temporary state of floodedness while agitating the water, but once you let it sit for a minute, the water rushes to the lowest level, leaving dry land.

The only way to flood the entire lump is to introduce new water into the system.

Unless you're going to re-arrange the topology of the lump, but the stories don't say that the mountains were pushed down into the waters. It says the waters rose up.

But let's assume it wasn't the waters rising but rather the earth moving. The flood was actually the ground re-arranging itself to be flatter so that the water could rise above the highest peak. This, of course, doesn't even get into the amount of energy required to raise Mt. Everest in the short amount of time described by the story. At the end of the flood, the ground would have to rise up again and Mt. Everest needs to rise 5 miles into the air above sea level, all in less than a year, not to mention all the other prominences across all the other continents. Such an uprising would require so much energy that it would have sterilized the surface of the planet and boiled off said water.

Trying to get the flood to happen with the water we currently have on the planet in the way it is described in the book is mathematically and physically impossible.


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.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 11-29-2011 7:51 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 11-30-2011 12:01 PM Rrhain has responded
 Message 15 by frako, posted 11-30-2011 4:18 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1605
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 11 of 300 (642606)
11-30-2011 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taz
11-29-2011 7:51 PM


Did he provide any empirical evidence for this at all, apart from "evidence" like "The Bible says the Fluddy happened!"?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 11-29-2011 7:51 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Taz, posted 11-30-2011 11:59 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2694
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 12 of 300 (642613)
11-30-2011 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by pandion
11-30-2011 1:05 AM


Isn't it interesting that the entire video is nothing more than assertion from faith in a book of mythology without a single bit of actual evidence?

Thats why its called creationism and not science or history, or geology or any of the sort.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by pandion, posted 11-30-2011 1:05 AM pandion has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 699 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 13 of 300 (642660)
11-30-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Pressie
11-30-2011 5:14 AM


Well, he proposed it, which in creationist talk is the same as evidence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Pressie, posted 11-30-2011 5:14 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 699 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 14 of 300 (642661)
11-30-2011 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Rrhain
11-30-2011 2:51 AM


If you think about it, the bible never stated that the entire earth was flooded all at the same time. Therefore, it must have flooded one region at a time until the entire earth was covered. I propose (in creationist terms) that massive tsunamis were responsible and that every part of the earth was covered at some point.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Rrhain, posted 11-30-2011 2:51 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Rrhain, posted 12-28-2011 2:49 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2694
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 15 of 300 (642694)
11-30-2011 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Rrhain
11-30-2011 2:51 AM


Trying to get the flood to happen with the water we currently have on the planet in the way it is described in the book is mathematically and physically impossible.

I dont know if your right.

Given that the deepest oceans reach 11 kilometers down i think we do have enough watter to cover the earth if we raise the land under the oceans to our current elevation and squash the mountains down a bit we only have to cover an extra 29% of the earth and we dont need to cover them a whole lot just a few feet. If someone knows the volume of watter on earth and the earth surface area one could calculate if it is possible.

volume of the earths oceans 1 350 000 000 KM3
surface area 510 000 000 km2

we should be able to cover the entire earth by 2,6 kilometers if we make the ground flat and uniform

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Rrhain, posted 11-30-2011 2:51 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Trixie, posted 11-30-2011 5:51 PM frako has responded

    
1
23456
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017