Existence of Noah's Ark

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

If it rained 4" per hour for forty days, over the entire land mass (4" is a guess, it may take more) what would it look like then?

---

Not enough.You need a column of water five miles tall (to cover Mt. Everest) coming down over 40 days. Do the math:5280 feet/mile * 12 inches/foot * 5 miles = 316,800 inches316,800 inches / 40 days / 24 hours/day = 330 inches/hourThat's the rate of water you need.And you need it on a global scale.

quote:

---

I fully realize that once it stopped raining, with a day or so the waters would recede.

---

It isn't a flood if the waters have receded.Nobody here has argued that there isn't enough water on the planet to moisten the surface.Instead, you're arguing that there was a flood. That means that the water stuck around and in the classic tale which you are trying to justify, the water stuck around for five months.

quote:

---

Even though people here are follishly trying to point that out to me.

---

That's because you appear to have foolishly forgotten your own argument. You're arguing for a flood, not a rainstorm.

quote:

---

Side note, is this webpage an indication that the ark may not be on the mountain, or the translation is messed up?

---

Since there is no ark, the question is academic, but yes, you are misreading the entry. It is not saying that the ark didn't land on a mountain. Instead, it is saying that it didn't land specifically on Mt. Ararat but rather on some mountain in the region of Ararat (and note that I did not say "Mt. Ararat" that second time.)In other words, there is a region known as "Ararat." The Bible says that the ark came down in the "mountains of Ararat." Thus, the ark is on a mountain somewhere in the region. It might be Mt. Ararat, but it could be any of the other mountains in the area.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

I'm saying 4" PER HOUR FOR FORTY DAYS. THAS 96" OF RAIN A DAY. 8'.

---

That's still not enough. You need 330 inches of water per hour because you have to cover Mt. Everest.By the way: Have you bothered to calculate the energy released from such a deluge? It actually gets a little bit warmer when it rains because the kinetic energy of the falling water is converted to thermal energy when it hits the ground.Just how hot do you think it became when 330 inches of water per hour over 40 days were dumped on the earth?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

The question is not where the ark would be. The question is whether there is a way to keep a shell of water suspended above the land when there isn't enough water to cover land in the first place.

---

​

Lost.

---

Yes, you are.You do know what a shell is, yes? You see, a flood can be considered a shell of water between the ground and the atmosphere.Thus, when you flood the land, you create a shell of water over the land. Now, how do you plan on keeping the water there for five months? You have to maintain the shell. That means that the shell can't be a curve-hugging one. Instead, it needs to be a uniform coating to a smooth surface.And as we calculated, covering the earth to five miles above sea level requires on the order of 10⁹ cubic miles of water.We only of on the order of 10⁸ cubic miles of water available.And over 97% of it is at or below sea level.Therefore, there isn't enough water to do it in the first place.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVerRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

It would help if you actually read the entire thread, and all the threads that it refers to.

---

(*chuckle*)I'm the one who has the reputation of completely quoting another person's post and responding practically to every single word in it.I vaguely recall you once whining that I wrote you a "book."Make up your mind.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Actually, that is only part of the story. And now we can get to why common sense is not quite enough.The water spread out until it reached land that was higher than the flood level. The boundaries of the flood were determined by the elevation and contour of the land as well as the quantity of the water.Now on to the next question.Why did so many places stay flooded as long as they did?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

[qs]But it isn't. Mt. Everest is five miles tall, has been that tall for quite some time, and will remain that tall long after we are gone assuming nothing blows it up.[/i]But none of us was there so nobody knows exactly how long it's been that tall. Note my hypothesis that there was much more water in the atmosphere then to create the vapor canopy and there were much smaller shallower oceans on earth. Overall then we could have had a lot more subterranian water as well as more atmospheric water with no direct sunlight. I know you're gona come up with the atmospheric pressure and all, but imo, the atmosphere was likely much higher with less density per sq in then. The canopy protection from the cold outer space would make up for the dimmer sun with no direct sunlight rays as we have today. Like in the winter in the North. It's those cold clear sunny days that are coldest. The cloud cover brings the warmer days.To do that, you need to add water above sea level. But all the water we have is at sea level or below. Any water we take from the oceans will immediately flow back to the oceans. You can certain dump the water on the land, but you can't keep it there.Gotta run outa town today so that's all I can say now.

Even though none of us were there to watch the Himalayas forming, we do understand how they formed. We know that they are very young in relation to other ranges. We also have examples of very old ranges and understand how they formed and subsequently, became worn down.Since we have a pretty good understanding of the processes on both ends we can say that both processes took far longer than 6000 years. For example, the Appalachians are among the oldest mountains we know of, dating back some 400-500 million years.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So, Noah didn't have to worry about getting squashed by a saturated atmosphere of thousands of pounds per square inch. He just had to worry about asphxia from a rarified atmosphere. And to extend the atmosphere higher than it now is, gravity would have been reduced to allow water molecules to "float" higher. Glad you cleared that up.If I were a water molecule in Noah's time, I'd be very confused as to what laws of physics I was supposed to be obeying."C'mon God, what do you want me to do? Up? Down? Hot? Cold? WH-A-A-A-A-T???"(:raig

quote:

---

Originally posted by riVeRraT

​

Maybe I am missing something here, but on that web page it says:
Ararat is the resting place of Noah's ark is based on a misreading of Gen. 8.4

---

Yes. Mt Ararat (singular: as a specific mountain) is a misreading of Gen. 8:4 which properly translated reads: "the mountains of Ararat (i.e., a range of mountains in a given region).

quote:

---

riVeRraT:

​

It is also a separate issue.

---

Yes, it is a separate issue. But you asked, so I provided you with the answer.Amlodhi

quote:

---

But none of us was there so nobody knows exactly how long it's been that tall.

---

Yeah, and none of us was around for the building of the Brooklyn Bridge, so are you saying that nobody knows how long it's been around?This is a fallacious argument that you have continued to use for YEARS, even though, every single time you make it, someone patiently explains why it is a poor, illogical, fallacious argument.Here you are, using it again.This is what you were vehemently denying that you do in the thread you opened about your posting.This is what we were talking about.

quote:

---

2. 20 feet of water if level wouldn't do anything in rugged territory, but if it rained 20 feet of water per day, it would..

---

No, it wouldn't. Picture here:How is 20 feet of water going to stay up on the top? The only possible way is if rain was coming in faster than the speed at which it would flow off there. The speed it would flow off there at the lowest point in the water is sqrt(2*g*d), so rounding 20 feet=6 meters, that's sqrt(2*9.8*6)=10.8 meters per second (that's *before* it starts to fall). Please, postulate how you'll overcome such a loss rate with new influx.

quote:

---

It ened up in the mountains of Ararat, not on a mountain neccesaraly.

---

Still higher than it started, wouldn't you say?

quote:

---

you may have a very valid point there. I did not realize that the pressure of the earth's atmosphere would change if all that water was added. But, the whole 7 feet of ocean would not be added at the same time. The cycle has to start somewhere, and I think you would need only 4' of ocean in the atmosphere at any given time.

---

And how quickly are you assuming that it's raining? 4" of ocean -> 8" of rain. Unless the water is moving in at mach speed, that rain is going to be out of the atmosphere in no-time-flat in your flood scenario. Do we need to add megahurricanes to our list of disasters that will kill Noah in a heartbeat?

quote:

---

I also am not claiming to know the component to who it happened only that if it did, there would be enough water here on earth to flood the earth.

---

Only if it is magically held to the surface by the hand of God on every point on Earth.

quote:

---

If I had to think about it, and I have. I would say the oceans would have to heat up quite a bit for this to happen. Then if the land is cooler, thats where the water would condense or rain.

---

I already showed you that even just 6 feet of ocean water increase earth's pressure by about 30% (and that there will be a dramatic increase in temperature to keep it suspended, although I didn't have the time to calculate it). Furthermore, as it rains, you're going to be releasing a *lot* of potential energy. How much? Assume that the average raindrop has to fall 100 meters. Assuming 1 centimeter of rain falls per second (the "total flood" scenario). In every square meter of land, every second, you would have 10 kg of water fall 100 meters. PE=mgh, so 10*9.8*100=9800 joules of energy per second: With Nowhere To Go. The energy of 10 100 watt lightbulbs on every meter of the planet, with their heat going nowhere except into the air and ground. Not only would this make such a rainfall rate physically impossible (the rain would re-vaporize long before hitting the ground with such a release rate), but it would parbroil the planet (along with poor Noah).

quote:

---

Scientists always say there isn't enough water on the earth for the flood to happen, I am just proving them wrong, IF I am right.

---

You have yet to postulate exactly *what* is stopping the water from flwoing into a state of lower potential energy - and *FAST* (v=sqrt(2*g*d)).

quote:

---

1. What does "Megatsunamis" have to do with it?

---

I'll assume from this that you don't know what a megatsunami is.Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes. Since there is a practical limit to how far the plates will move at once, tsunamis are limited to about a dozen meters or so in height.However, this view of tsunamis was to change, on August 9, 1958, when a powerful earthquake rocket Lituya Bay in Alaska:See that light colored area that looks like beach? That is over *500 meters high* in places. When the quake struck, it triggered a huge landslide into the water. The displaced water created a truly massive wave, the likes of which had not been scientifically documented in history prior. This is a megatsunami.Far worse than Lituya bay is known, however. Volcanic islands around the world show evidence of huge landslides in which a sizable part of the entire island fell into the ocean. Such landslides are not a thing of the past. Of special concern is the island of La Palma in the Canary Islands. In an eruption earlier this century, the western half of the island started to collapse, and then caught itself. When it goes, its wave is expected to take out the entire eastern seaboard of the United States, in places reaching as far as 60 kilometers inland.Now, picture an amount of water mass moving at heights and speeds that make the La Palma look like a grain of sand, the world over, colliding with each other regularly. Even deep water won't save you in such a situation.

quote:

---

3. Again I am not sure how this would affect what I am saying. Its my ignorance, I know, just bare with me.

---

This is tied to #1 of part 1; if you don't believe that the layers of sediments were layed down during the flood, then this is irrelevant to your case.

quote:

---

4. Are you trying to say that the flood, if it happened would wash away all these things?

---

See above.

quote:

---

5. Sorting?

---

Yes. This is still applicable to your case, even if you don't take the standard creationist viewpoint. Why are all fossils "sorted" in a particular pattern, the world over? For example, every Gigantopithicus has a very narrow range of layers it can exist in. You *never* find a non-vaulted burial of a modern human skeleton in the same layer with a gigantopithicus. Grasses are only in recent sediments. Trilobytes are only on old sediments. Etc. Every fossil has a very narrow range of layers it can exist in, even if the fossil is widespread throughout the whole planet.Furthermore, this sorting occurs irrespective of general physical characteristics (size, shape, mass, etc), but only with respect to transitioning morphological characteristics. This is the very reason why early geologists - who were creationist, mind you - had to give up the Great Flood theory. They then adopted a theory of "multiple floods", and then keep adding more and more floods in, until they eventually had to give it up.

quote:

---

7. Fresh water fish could survive in the conditions I am saying.

---

Um, no they couldn't. They'd be swept into saline conditions in no time. Plus, many freshwater species are temperature-dependant, they're often very diet-dependant, and sometimes incredibly reproduction-location-specific. I mean, heck, the mere act of *damming a river* can kill off fish populations like crazy, and drive them extinct in the rivers involved if left untreated.

quote:

---

Plus if God wanted them to, they would.

---

Look, if you just want to say "Goddunnit", that's fine, but don't try and abuse real physics in the process.

quote:

---

Again, I am only addressing the water issue.

---

Fair enough.This message has been edited by Rei, 09-30-2004 07:33 PMThis message has been edited by Rei, 09-30-2004 07:35 PM

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

You still haven't read everthing I wrote. I have answer all those questions.Get your head out of the literal translation of what the bible said happened.

Thats why people never freeze to death at the bottom of Niagra falls.

Would someone else, like Ned, who seems to understand what I am saying explain it to him?

How does it feel?
Now you are no better than me in one respect. More to come.