Global Warming & the Flood

I based that on news articles years ago describing how that Mars rock everybody got excited about wound up in Antarctica. The one everyone thought for a time showed evidence of life on Mars.It was explained that, occasionally, volcanic eruptions can toss material into space, and so there are a small number of rocks from Mars on Earth.I'll do a bit of research, and see if it's true or not, and if it can apply to Earch-based volcanoes (Earth having a stronger gravitational pull than Mars and thus a higher escape velocity).

I believe it's also possible that most/many of the Mars rocks found on Earth are impact ejecta.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 07-27-2005 03:48 PM

I've done a bit of hunting, and haven't come up with anything supporting Earthbound volcanoes sputing ejecta into orbit. Apparently this only happens on planets like Mars and moons like Io whre escape velocity is much lower.Sorry for being inaccurate. The rest of my point should still stand, though.

Not the same thing but I do believe Rush Limbaugh (is that a good enough source for you? smirk)claimed at one point that volcanoes could shoot chlorine molecules into the stratosphere and were thus more culpable in depleting the ozone layer than chloroflourocarbons released from air conditioning systems.

it is this I particularly dont understand. I could be wrong, but I think water, if it could and did go into orbit (or was already in orbit -- aka, the canopy theory), would not fall back to earth like rocks do. Water doesn't do a straight descent fall, it atomizes, makes clouds, blows around, coalesces, etc. I imagine the "rain" is not from orbit, but rather like we see today...it's just that the water from which the rain was made had to come from further up than usual (and in the process removed heat from the earth).Therefore, so far, I don't think we would see this "poach the world" type heat from the Flood waters raining down over a 40 day period.AbE: I am not proposing the canopy theory, though...that would NOT remove heat from the earth. I am merely pointing out that I fail to see how water coming from a great height (no matter the theory) would do the "poach the earth" thing because water doesn't fall like rocks.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 12:13 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 12:45 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 12:51 AM

But wasn't that the purpose of the Flood...to destroy the earth and almost every living thing on it?Genesis 6:13
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.AbE: I guess this is off-topic, though -- i.e., the purpose of the Flood as opposed to the mechanics/effects of the Flood.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 12:56 AM

Assuming that any of my ideas are correct, these "bits" fall back and the larger "bits" would produce disastrous results, but the purpose of the Flood was to destroy.

From approximately what height have you seen rain fall?
--I don't know really...I believe (from what I can remember from highschool science) that it does not come from too high up, actually)From approximately what height are you proposing the flood waters fell?
--when those waters fell as rain? the same height as normal rain, the water would coalesce where it does now for rain.Approximately what volume of water have you seen fall as rain?(You might want to look at The wettest place).
--me personally? not too much, not too little -- I live in the panhandle of Florida. But are the people in the "wettest place" getting poached? What about the people in Vietnam, during the monsoons -- do they get poached...or even a little hotter than usual due to all the energy released from the falling rain?Approximately what volume of water are you proposing fell as flood waters?
--I have not proposed any volume. I really wouldn't know where to begin to arrive at even an approximation. I believe, currently, that most of the oceans and ice caps were the Flood waters, but I do not believe all the Flood waters came in the form of rain. But, for my ideas about the Ice Age to be correct, a certain volume of water would be required to reduce the internal energy of the earth enough to cause an Ice Age (if that basic idea has any merit at all, and it might not).This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 12:48 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 12:57 AM

quote:

---

And I'm not a physics wonk but it occurs to me - at the speeds we are discussing - would the water not just turn straight to steam anyway?

---

It might at that...or a lot of it anyways. (AbE: after thinking through this a bit more...I am, for the time being, changing "a lot of it" to "some of it")I wonder, could steam even be propelled into orbit? If so, would the energy requirements to do so be reduced, increased, or would they remain unchanged (since a certain volume of water is a certain volume of water)?This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 01:18 AM

I know that if you propel an object upwards, energy must be added to the object to overcome the gravity. I also know that the object -- a cue ball, for instance -- will return with the same velocity it had when it left (talking about an instance of velocity, here, because the object will actually be accelerating -- that is, the velocity will be changing with time -- in both directions). In other words, the initial kinetic energy turns into potential energy. At a certain time, the ball stops moving upward -- at that point all kinetic energy has beens converted to potential energy. Then the potential energy becomes kinetic energy as the cue ball returns toward the earth.(AbE: It's been awhile since physics in highschool. Kinetic energy, IIRC, is energy of motion -- like falling -- while Potential energy would be related to the mass and height of an object and exists because of gravity -- at least in this case.Also, it is important to note that an intial amount of kinetic energy is added to the object...the kinetic energy is converted more and more into potential energy on the way up. That is, the higher the object goes, the more potential energy it has and the less kinetic energy. At the peak, the object has only potential energy and no kinetic energy. During the return, the opposite happens. The potential energy decreases while kinetic energy increases until contact with the earth is made. At that point all the energy is kinetic energy and none is potential...impact brings in a different set of problems, which have no bearing on the discussion and which I probably dont remember too well anyways)So, no...not all the kinetic energy is converted to heat. It is converted to potential energy, which is converted back into kinetic energy on the way back down. It is friction -- resistance to motion (specifically air resistance, in this case) -- which causes objects returning from orbit -- like the shuttle -- to become super hot. Friction converts some -- not nearly all -- the kinetic energy into heat.However, water particles usually don't fall straight down because they cannot overcome the air resistance and air currents very easily; so, water droplets would not get superheated on the way down.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 01:22 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 01:27 AM

WHEN was the ice age? how long did it last in your view?Okay. Very good questions.When: If I stick with my current the-earth-is-about-6000-years-old view, and with my current the-Flood-occurred-about-5000-years-ago view, that would put the Ice Age at about 5000 years ago.How Long: I've never thought about it at all...so I really can't give an answer to that one. But I think the question is very interesting.(AbE for the purpose of levity: it ended sometime before I was
born...I am certain of that.)(AbE: Just thinking about it for a few seconds, I am thinking of a nearly constant retreat of the ice caps over the last 5000 years...I wonder if that would make the "end" of the Ice Age hard to determine? It is also beginning to dawn on me that I have actually started a topic with too many sub-topics...oops!)This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 01:39 AM

In regards to that post I offer the following repost from:http://EvC Forum: How do you decide what is True in the Bible? -->EvC Forum: How do you decide what is True in the Bible?

quote:

---

I think the problem for many Christians who come here is as follows:

​

quote:

---

Zragger was the mighty plusrazor master of the shattered oyxy box. Before he existed, he was able to perform mighty crackletoes of zograds. But low he had an nemisis - the unholy slapperbotrum. And a day came when they fought with jellyguns.

---

​

Now it seems like I'm taking the piss and suggesting that Christianity is nonsense, I'm not. But to a disbeliever, the claims of Christianity can sound like that. May disbelievers don't wish to offend but many Christians find it difficult to understand why people don't "get it". It’s very difficult for people who put great store in something to understand that to many people it is of no significant at all.

​

This tends to led to two types of problems here:

​

quote:

---

1) The special pleading:

​

it says such and such in the bible therefore it must true.

​

God could have just released all of the heat into space with a wave of his hand.

​

Now this is fine in the faith forums but may posters run into trouble because they try to use this line of reasoning in the science forums. Christians who come here have to accept that in the SCIENCE forums the bible is given little to no credence, it is just a book. Others, will for a while, try and practice Pseudoscience, they will offer explanations but when cornered will resort to goddunit or well you don’t know the answer either so it must be true!!

---

​

This causes friction and problems.

​

quote:

---

2) testimonial:

​

But it was very dangerous to be a christian in those times

​

Won Ryatt was a great man and I knew him. I just know he was telling the truth when he says he found the Ark

​

This is the second big problem I see here on a regular basic. The Christian religion is one that is built on testimonial, again something that most people in the science forums will not accept. This lends to all sorts of problems because many Christians then try to argue the scientist NOT the science — But he was an honest man, it must be true or more commonly He’s covering up the evidence because he’s an atheist. This cuts no ice at all in the science forums.

---

​

This causes friction and problems.

---

It doesn't matter how it comes back. No matter how slow the journey back down, the water possesses incredible velocity - it has to, to have been in orbit in the first place - and no matter how it comes back down, its coming to rest on the Earth's surface.That energy has to go somewhere, and it goes into the atmosphere as heat. It's pretty simple physics and the fact that water doesn't fall like a stone doesn't change anything about that. What you fail to see is that it doesn't matter how the water comes down; it still has an incredible kinetic energy that must be released into the atmosphere as heat.

The water can't fall forever. Eventually it comes to rest on the Earth's surface. So, yes, all that kinetic energy you imparted on the way up has to go somewhere, and it goes to heat. An incredible amount of heat. It's actually pressure, but the principle is the same. The shuttle converts its terrific velocity to heat on the way back down, the majority of it during reentry, and the rest in the friction of the tires on the landing strip, and the action of the brakes. Um, no, you have it backwards. Because air resistance is operating on the droplets, they will become superheated. Where do you think all that velocity has to go?No matter how you slice it, you're imparting teriific velocity to water and then bringing it to rest. Ignoring where that energy is supposed to have come from in the first place, you have to do something to it at the end. It doesn't just go away. (Thermodynamics.) Unless you're putting it to work, which would be impossible, it turns into heat. Enormous heat. It either does this on the way down, as the action of pressure on each little drop, or it does this at the end, as the heat created by an enormous impact, or both.You can't get rid of the heat just because water is neither stones nor the space shuttle. Water has mass, quite a bit of it, and the energy to accellerate that mass is going to wind up as enough heat to sterilize the Earth, because there's no physical principle that allows you to escape that.

What is the minimum speed to place something in orbit?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion