Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Goin Back Up!!

quote:

---

Now, the whole snowball earth thing is really a non sequitor anyway. A red herring that we shouldn't have gotten into discussing. It was just suggested to you, I think, that if you wanted a global catastrophe that somehow sort of involved water then you could pick that. There aren't any other choices.

---

YAAAWN..........zzzzzzzzzzzzz

I wasn't aware that you were proposing supernatural circumvention of natural law until now. If that's the case, why are we talking about science? If your religion compels you to believe in these things, that's fine. They're not scientifically possible. The rest of us believe that means that they won't happen. If you believe something else, that's fine, but you can't support it with science. Your statements (I'm paraphrasing, btw) that future conditions would lead to a significant fraction of the Earth's water being suspended in the atmosphere were refuted by the fact that the temperatures needed to suspend that much water would render the Earth uninhabitable by life. Since this is not an outcome predicted by your prophecy, but one that would have to occur, we can assume your prophecy is wrong.Now, if you circumvent natural law wth supernatural interference, well, like I said, all bets are off. There's no way to predict what will happen then. At that point it's just your religion vs. mine. But if we're going to talk about natural laws, then you have to understand that they conclusively demonstrate that the kind of events you're referring to can't ever happen.

Such an intelligent comment.You want me to bother going over your posts and picking some bit "specifically"? Why bother?Why should I bother for two reasons; one being the kinds of comments like the one above. The more important one being I understand that we've already moved off the whole question of creation "science". Who cares if you don't think it can happen without a miracle?I'm not interested in discussing miracles. Well, actually I am, you have to demonstrate that a miracle HAD to have happened to explain existing, very good evidence. Not that it could of or that we don't have another explanation yet so it might have but that it HAD to have. To do this you would need a doctorate level understanding of a very specific area of science and some very interesting new data. I can't think of how it could be managed otherwise.

It's immaterial as to how long and how high, as long as it can still be considered gravitationally bound to the Earth. If you place one pound of water above one square inch of ground, it will give you one pound per square inch of pressure. It matters not whether it's liquid or vapor if that bottom square inch is holding it up.
If the water is in the atmosphere as a gas, I repeat, it must be at a sufficient temperature to keep it as vapor. If it's there as liquid or solid, it will soon fall. If there's enough water vapor to weigh 14.7 pounds over every square inch, the temperature MUST be at least 212 F. If, as in my "1% of oceans" example, there's enough to weigh 37 lb/sq in, you get 262 F. If it's 70 degrees F, only about 0.36 pounds of water will fit as vapor - any additional condenses and falls.
You may not like these facts, buz, but you likely will find them hard to escape.

quote:

---

The total mass of the hydrosphere is 1.3 x 10^21 kg, and that of the atmosphere 5.1 x 10^18 kg - both numbers from science sites on the web.

---

Ok, but a warmer atmosphere would expand to a more expansive, less dense mass at the onset of heat. Right? So when evaporation ensues, it has more area for the vapor to expand into, steadily decreasing in density as the atmosphere continues to heat and expand. in turn, this also increases the heat of the warmer stratosphere, expanding it also, so as to make it less dense, so as to make it easier for the atmosphere to expand. {Pardon, but this's common sense street stuff, n not sure it's the cup o tea for you folks here in this town.)

quote:

---

Our current surface atmospheric pressure is 14.7 pounds per square inch....

---

But if the heat expands the atmosphere n stratosphere to less density and more expanse, shouldn't that lessen earth's present atmospheric pressure?This's what I meant a page or two back by scientific calculations not factoring in the unprecedented climatic changes this hypothesis calls for, and for that matter, there's no way of telling what specific temperatures were talking here, how fast they emerge and so forth. Consequently, your formulas designed for present pressures, etc won't work. It the same ole same ole argument we creationists have with you people when we say your dating methods don't factor in the pre-flood conditions we assume, so it's all in how you interpret what is observed , etc. Your failure to acknowledge these is what makes you all rather arrogant, imo. You belittle us for being scientific, using the premise we come from, not giving us credit for any smarts at all. We all need to understand more where each is coming from. Then we can understand more why we interpret as we do, what is observed.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-06-2003]

quote:

---

It's immaterial as to how long and how high, as long as it can still be considered gravitationally bound to the Earth. If you place one pound of water above one square inch of ground, it will give you one pound per square inch of pressure. It matters not whether it's liquid or vapor if that bottom square inch is holding it up.

---

But my contention is that the heat will expand the vapor to become less dense in a higher far more expansive atmosphere so as to disallow it to reach that pressure.

quote:

---

If the water is in the atmosphere as a gas, I repeat, it must be at a sufficient temperature to keep it as vapor. If it's there as liquid or solid, it will soon fall. If there's enough water vapor to weigh 14.7 pounds over every square inch, the temperature MUST be at least 212 F. If, as in my "1% of oceans" example, there's enough to weigh 37 lb/sq in, you get 262 F. If it's 70 degrees F, only about 0.36 pounds of water will fit as vapor - any additional condenses and falls.

---

I assuming you're calculations are not factoring in a more expansive higher atmosphere. Are you denying that a hotter climate will have that effect?

There might be more volume to expand into, but the surface area of the earth doesn't change. And pressure = weight/area. A one-foot column of liquid water will exert the same pressure as the one-mile column of water vapor you get from evaporating it.I'm not trying to be arrogant - just to present the simple, unescapeable facts for this situation.

Coragyps addressed the pressure comments, but I thought I'd jump in here: See, what Creationists don't seem to realize is that a lot of those "assumptions" can be tested. For instance, you can assume a flood all you like, and explain how contradictory data is really just a matter of interpretation - but when we observe floods happening today, they leave evidence that they did. Floods in the past have left evidence of their time and place. We can find evidence of floods when they occur. floods aren't just assumptions, they happen, and when they do they leave unique signatory evidence.There's no evidence that suggests a global flood happened (that can't be explained by more reasonable models). There's a lot of evidence thst says it didn't (places where there's not nearly enough sediment, animal survival, etc). So, what's more reasonable to believe? That an enormous global flood occured, but occured in such a way as to leave no positive evidence for it's occurance; or that it simply didn't happen?I can "assume" that the Earth came from a giant egg, and interpret all data through that lens - but without positive evidence of that egg, why is it fruitful to do so? Actually I think I understand very well where YEC's are coming from. They're coming from a place that demands that all physical evidence be either bent to support a literal reading of the bible or rejected entirely. That's not science, that's superstition and arrogance.

The size of the atmosphere doesn't matter. The pressure doesn't change with size. I think that's what he's talking about. That's why it's not in the calculations.

This has been covered by others. But given how well you're doing so far I don't think you're going to get it.Remember my list of "common sense" things. If you lift something up you have to push to keep it up. If you want to hold the atmosphere and the additional water vapour up then you have to push back. You have to push back from the surface of the earth. If the whole thing does expand as you suggest then the atmosphere may well be less dense than it would be if you crammed all that water in below the present startosphere's height. However, it would be HIGHER. So one way or the other it will push down just as hard. It's either less dense and more volume (ie higher) or more dense and less volume but it still weighs just as much.Once you have the problem of keeping it up there you have to supply the push. The only way is to get it hotter, a lot hotter.But why are you arguing this? You already said it takes a miracle. We agree it does since you have to violate well established physics without any detectable natural reason which is as good a description of miracle as any I guess.If you say it takes a miracle then there isn't any further need to discuss any physics. You took all the physics away.

There's an old joke:Which weighs more: A pound of feathers or a pound of lead?Many people quickly glance at it and miss the fact that a pound of anything weighs a pound. While a pound of feathers may take up more space than a pound of lead (depending on how they configured), it is still a pound.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Thank you. That might help make it clearer.edited to add:Though if we mean to talk about the mass of the objects and we use a scale to "weigh" them then the feathers may need to be slightly more massive to "weigh" a pound. They will be slightly more bouyant in air.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-07-2003]

quote:

---

And you people are soooo critical of creationists because you think we know so little.

---

Well, as you are demonstrating so well, many creationists know little of science, yet somehow feel comfortable holding strong opinions about that which they do not understand in the least.

quote:

---

Maybe you all are to be proven wrong on a whole lota other stuff you claim to be so down pat on.

---

Yes, maybe.The point, however, is that you claimed that gravity was one of those things that didn't need to be discussed anymore because it was "proven" unlike the ToE. I was simply pointing out that the mechanism of gravity is barely understood, while the mechanism of Evolution is understood very well.See, you just lost a point. The tentativity of science is not it's weakness, but it's strength. It is able to change in the light of new evidence. Being able to correct errors, to "do better when we know better", seems to be a flaw in your eyes. Why is that?

quote:

---

You're over critical of my point. We do know gravity exists and that it makes things fall toward earth. That's all we need to know for the purposes of this thread. Start another thread on gravity if you want to get technical about that subject.

---

My point was not actually about gravitational theory, nor about Atomic theory.My point was to show you that you maybe don't know what you are talking about, and that maybe you might want to hit the books and start to educate yourself. My point was that in objecting to the ToE for your stated reasons is invalid unless you also want to reject Atomic theory, the Germ Theory of Disease, Gravitational Theory, etc.We are talking about the reasons you reject the ToE and not these other scientific theories. I am simply asking you to clarify your logic by bringing up examples which counter the points you are trying to make.So, tell me why you accept that electrons exist even though we have never directly observed one, yet you reject the ToE even though we have and do directly observe evolution all the time.

quote:

---

S: Lastly, you use the word "proven". There is no such thing as "proven" in science, at least not "proven" to such an extent that the concept becomes immune to new evidence.

---

quote:

---

That's nonsense, imo.

---

So, you get to rewrite the philosophical tenets of science because, in your opinion, they aught to be?HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!Don't you read what people write here at all?

quote:

---

It's a proven fact that hot air goes up under given conditions and cold air goes down under given conditions.

---

No, it isn't a "proven fact" if you take "proven" to mean "shown to be true forever".Science, philosophically, is wedded to the idea of tentativity, which means that no finding can ever be immune from further testing. If evidence comes forth which shows that psat findings are in error, perhaps under certain conditions, then the theory must be amended.That's what happened to Newton's Theory when Einstein came along.

quote:

---

Evolutionists don't like to admit there's proven things, because they teach so much that isn't that they want us all to believe nothing's proven.

---

This is an excerpt from the essay I linked you to which explains what science is and isn't. I strongly suggest that you go read it and stop embarrasing yourself.science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com"To be able to test a theory by experience means to be able to predict certain observable or measurable consequences from the theory. For example, from a theory about how physical bodies move in relation to one another, one predicts that a pendulum ought to follow a certain pattern of behavior. One then sets up a pendulum and tests the hypothesis that pendulums behave in the way predicted by the theory. If they do, then the theory is confirmed. If pendulums do not behave in the way predicted by the theory, then the theory is falsified. (This assumes that the predicted behavior for the pendulum was correctly deduced from your theory and that your experiment was conducted properly.)The fact that a theory passed an empirical test does not prove the theory, however. The greater the number of severe tests a theory has passed, the greater its degree of confirmation and the more reasonable it is to accept it. However, to confirm is not the same as to prove logically or mathematically. No scientific theory can be proved with absolute certainty."

I also find it funny, Buzsaw, that you chided me for being off topic in my reply to you, yet you ignore the points I made which were on topic!So, what about my point about seashells being found on top of mountains where there is also evidence for great uplift due to tectonic activity?Also, what about Rev. Segewick and his great scholarship about Flood Geology 180 years ago?No comment on those points at all??------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

I disagree with you here, Schaf. I think Buz is correct that, for all pracitcal purposes, we can and do, finally, move some things into the "fact" category.The "things raising" that Buz mentions is closer to the set of observations than it is explanatory theories. In general, we would be willing to move observations into the "fact" category easily.The atomic theory of matter was very tentative at the time of the Greeks and is now (if you over simplify it to "there are atoms") 'almost a fact'. And it has been for most of a century.The issue is that there are ranges of implied probablilities of being correct. With enough simple observations that repeat each other the observation is called "fact" (ie "proven" ). It is proven that at low temperatures some metals have zero resistance would not be argued with.What Buz won't like is I would also say: "It is proven that life on earth has evolved". This is also a repeated observation.It is also a fact that there IS gravity. Buz is right. This would be considered to be proven just like the occurance of evolution.However, you're right. The theory of gravity that is the explanation of HOW gravity works, isn't,I don't think, as solid and clear as the theory of evolution -- HOW things evolved.The atomic theory of matter is very solid as an explanation for chemistry. It stayed intact over the last century. However, on another level it is wrong. The atoms aren't the indivisable little balls they were thought to be, and the neutrons and protons aren't either. The standard model of sub atomic physics extends the atomic theory down below those particles. Now we have quarks. There are, apparently and outside my limits of understanding, good reason to think that quarks don't have constituent particles, by the way.Too long a post.
In summary, there is a range of degrees of assurance (tentivenessness) with any given entity. Some may be spoken of as proven, while others are even speculative.The occurance of evolution is well up on the fact side. The theory of evolution is, as you say, over on that side when compared to any of the other major theories of science. Snowball earth is a somewhat to the other side.