Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,836 Year: 3,093/9,624 Month: 938/1,588 Week: 121/223 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   100 Categories of Evidence Against Noah’s Flood
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 16 of 96 (463111)
04-12-2008 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
05-12-2007 1:16 AM


Here's another that was missed (though it is heavily implied by 98 and 99):
Geometric impossibility. The reason dry land exists is because there isn't enough water to cover it. If there were, then there wouldn't be any dry land. Local floods are possible because water is taken from somewhere else: A flood here means a drought there. But in a global flood, there must be enough water to cover everything simultaneously.
Expanding on this concept: The total amount of water available on the earth is on the order of 10^8 cubic miles. This includes the water that is suspended in the atmosphere. If the water that were suspended in the atmosphere were to be precipitated out, it would raise the ocean levels by about an inch...and would then immediately be sucked back up into the atmosphere.
Of the water not in the atmosphere, 97% of the water is in the oceans and thus is unavailable for flooding: It is forming the floor upon which we must add water to cover the dry land that is sticking above it. In order to cover Mt. Everest, we need on the order of 10^9 cubic miles of water:
The radius of the earth is approximately 4000 miles. Mt. Everest is approximately 5 miles above that. Thus, we need a shell of water with an inner diameter of 4000 miles and is 5 miles thick.
The volume of a sphere is 4/3*pi*r^3. Thus, the volume of the shell is the volume of a sphere with a radius of 4005 miles minus the volume of a sphere with a radius of 4000 miles:
4/3*pi*4005^3 - 4/3*pi*4000^3 = 4/3*pi*(4005^3 - 4000^3) ~ 10^9 cubic miles
The amount of water that it would take to flood the earth is an order of magnitude larger than the amount of water even available to do it.
But again, the fact that we have any dry land at all makes the entire question moot: We have dry land because there isn't enough water to flood it.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 05-12-2007 1:16 AM anglagard has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 41 of 96 (463288)
04-15-2008 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw
04-14-2008 11:48 PM


Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
Buzsaw writes:
quote:
Gotta run now, Rahvin but in the meantime, think shallow oceans an smoother earth surface pre-flood and much deeper oceans and irregular surface post flood.
Do you have any idea how much energy it would take to raise a mass the size of the continents? Assuming a roughly conical shape, Mt. Everest is about 72 km in diameter at its base and is about 9 km tall. That gives a volume of about 12,000 cubic km. It's made up primarily of marble which has a density of about 2,500 kg/m^3 which gives Mt. Everest a weight of about 3x10^17 kg.
Thus, to raise Mt. Everest by one meter would require on the order of 3x10^17 Joules of energy. That's 300,000 TJ (tera-Joules).
The largest nuclear explosion was about 250,000 TJ.
And since energy cannot be converted entirely to work, it's going to take much more than that to actually move the mountain. And all that extra energy will be bled out as heat.
The surface of the planet would have liquified and the water would have boiled away.
quote:
Also don't forget the subterain and the ice caps at the poles as well as the huge tundra, etc.
It's not forgotten. It's included in the total amount of water on the planet.
You're still ignoring the geometric impossibility of a global flood. The fact that we have any dry land at all means that it is geometrically impossible to flood it all simultaneously. If we could, then it would already be flooded.
Local floods are possible because we take water away from somewhere else to dump it in a local area: You can cover dry land here because you expose dry land there. It's a zero-sum game. It doesn't matter if the highest elevation is 5 miles or 5 inches. If it's above water, then it cannot be flooded without exposing dry land somewhere else.
This is the second time I've posted this here, so please pay attention:
97% of all the water on the earth is in the oceans. Atmospheric, non-oceanic surface (rivers, lakes, snowpack, etc.), and underground water accounts for only 3% of all the water the planet has.
It isn't enough.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 04-14-2008 11:48 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 46 of 96 (463297)
04-15-2008 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by molbiogirl
04-15-2008 12:35 AM


Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
molbiogirl writes:
quote:
Can one of you do the maths to figure out just how much smoother and smaller the Earth would have to be in order to allow the available water to cover it to flood depth?
Well, that doesn't really have a good answer because there is no one way to have everything underwater. F'rinstance, a very simple calculation would be to take the amount of water that we have and have it as a shell of water say 1 meter thick and then determine the radius of the earth underneath it.
The volume of a sphere is 4/3*pi*r^3. Thus, the volume of a shell would be 4/3*pi*r^3 - 4/3*pi*(r-1)^3 = 1.3*10^18 cubic meters. Solving for r:
4/3*pi(r^3 - (r-1)^3)=1.3e18
r^3 - (r^3 -3r^2 + 3r - 1) = 3.1e17
3r^2 -3r + 1 = 3.1e17
3r^2 - 3r - 3.1e17 = 0
r = 3.2e8
Well, that's pretty much about the radius of the earth right now. All you'd have to do is shovel all the land into the ocean and you'd do it. The reason why you wouldn't have to do too much is because we don't have that much dry land and we don't have that much water.
But all that said, it really doesn't matter how shallow the oceans are and how smooth the planet is: So long as there is any dry land anywhere, there is geometrically not enough water to flood the planet for if there were, then the planet would already be flooded. That's what makes a global flood impossible: You either are flooded or you never can be.
The amount of water that is suspended in the atmosphere is sufficient to raise sea level by about an inch. The rest of the water is already at the lowest point and thus cannot be used for a flood.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by molbiogirl, posted 04-15-2008 12:35 AM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by bluegenes, posted 04-15-2008 2:16 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 59 of 96 (463401)
04-16-2008 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Buzsaw
04-15-2008 9:40 AM


Re: Input Response
Buzsaw writes:
quote:
THE UNKNOWNS:
1. How much more atmospheric pressure a canopy would exert upon the planet.
Incorrect.
I bet you fell for the joke:
Which weighs more: A ton of feathers or a ton of lead?
The answer, of course, is "Neither. They both weigh a ton."
In order to flood the earth, we need five miles of liquid water in order to cover Mt. Everest.
It doesn't matter if that water is in liquid or gaseous state with regard to how much it weighs and how much pressure it exerts on you: It's the same amount of water.
Human beings can barely survive the pressure when only 300 meters down. You want to put them five miles down?
quote:
2. The effect upon earth as this pressure was suddenly significantly reduced via the flood.
Incorrect: This is simple physics. In order for the water vapor to condense, you'll have a huge fluctuation in temperature. Don't you remember my primer on thermodynamics? All you need to do is determine the amount of energy required to get the water from its current temperature to the condensation point, then the amount of energy to condense it, and then how much energy is required to drop the temperature from that point to whatever final temperature is needed.
But let's ignore the temperature drop of the water vapor to the condensation point. Let's just look at the energy required to condense water:
Q = Lm
For water vapor, L = 2.27 MJ/kg
Note the units: MEGAJoules. Water stores a huge amount of heat.
In order to flood the earth, we need on the order of 10^9 cubic miles of water. That's about 4e21 kg of water. That means, in order to condense the water, we will be dumping on the order of 10^28 J of energy.
That energy has to go somewhere (First Law of Thermodynamics).
The largest nuclear blast was on the order of 10^17 J. That means we need to dump 10^11 largest nuclear blasts we have ever seen onto the earth in order to take it out of the water to condense it.
One hundred billion 58-megaton bombs exploding all over the surface of the earth. Note: A 58 mega-ton bomb is 6000 times more powerful than what we dropped on Hiroshima.
To condense the water would melt the surface of the earth.
quote:
a. Would it cause the earth to expand a tad?
No. Whether the water is liquid or gas, it still weighs the same.
quote:
b. Would it affect the earth's magnetic field?
No. The magnetic field is a function of the iron core of the earth rotating.
quote:
c. How much would it affect the properties of the air which living organisms live by?
We know that quite well:
It would kill everything as the surface temperature of the earth would soar to well over 600 K. The pressure would crush us like grapes.
quote:
d. What effect would it have on subterranean water?
Again, this is simple physics. It wouldn't change anything.
quote:
e. How much volcanic activity would it release?
It would melt the surface of the earth.
quote:
f. Would it decompress pressure on the earth core so as to expand and crack tectonic plates etc?
No. Whether it is liquid or gaseous, it weighs the same.
quote:
3. How much does science itself lend credence to the canopy hypothesis?
Absolutely none.
You really don't know anything about the most basic physics, do you? This is all high school stuff.
quote:
4. How much would the hyperbolic oxygen effect have on longevity and size of plants, animals and insects?
Actually, it would kill you. That's part of the reason that we cannot survive below about 300 m of water: The oxygen in the air becomes toxic. That's why deep divers have helium mixes: You have to reduce the oxygen content of the atmosphere so it won't kill you.
quote:
5. How would all of the above skew modern dating methodology?
Absolutely none. Radioactivity is not affected by pressure. Pressure is an effect of proximity. Radioactivity is a nuclear force that is carried by the W+, W-, and Z particles.
I mean it, Buzsaw: You really don't know anything about physics, do you?
I really want an answer to this question: Have you ever had any formal training in physics? I mean real physics that you need calculus to figure out where you did the experiment of suspending a pendulum from the ceiling so you could directly calculate G (the constant of universal gravitation), where you recreated the Millikin experiment to directly measure the charge on an electron, where you measured the spectral lines of hydrogen, that sort of physics.
Again, that's high school level stuff. How much physics do you know?
Edited by Rrhain, : A couple of bad sentences made it through.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 04-15-2008 9:40 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 60 of 96 (463402)
04-16-2008 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by bluegenes
04-15-2008 2:16 PM


Re: Canopy Hypothesis Likelyhood
bluegenes responds to me:
quote:
Unless you have ice caps that you can melt.
The amount of ice on the earth is negligible compared to the amount of water in the oceans. 97% of all the water in the earth is in the oceans. About 2% of the water on the earth is in the icecaps and glaciers.
Plus, we need to put the water ABOVE the icecaps. We have dry land above the level of the icecaps.
quote:
Interestingly, a completely smooth earth would always be flooded
I know. That's my point. Since we're talking about GLOBAL effects, then the earth is either always flooded or never can be. If there were enough water to flood the earth, then it would be flooded right now. Since it is not flooded, then it is geometrically impossible to do so.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by bluegenes, posted 04-15-2008 2:16 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by bluegenes, posted 04-16-2008 4:44 PM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 76 of 96 (463541)
04-18-2008 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Buzsaw
04-17-2008 9:39 PM


Re: Smooth earth!
Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:
My model does not feature a completely smooth earth. It features a far smoother earth surface than post flood but the mountains would be more like foothills post flood with relatively shallow oceans preflood.
Irrelevant. If there is any dry land anywhere, then it is geometrically impossible to flood the earth. That's the entire point behind there being dry land: There isn't enough water to cover it. If there were, then it would be flooded.
Plus, you seem to have completely ignored Message 41 of this very thread where I directly spoke to you about the energy required to move mountains.
Do you have any idea how much energy it would take to raise a mass the size of the continents? Assuming a roughly conical shape, Mt. Everest is about 72 km in diameter at its base and is about 9 km tall. That gives a volume of about 12,000 cubic km. It's made up primarily of marble which has a density of about 2,500 kg/m^3 which gives Mt. Everest a weight of about 3x10^17 kg.
Thus, to raise Mt. Everest by one meter would require on the order of 3x10^17 Joules of energy. That's 300,000 TJ (tera-Joules).
The largest nuclear explosion was about 250,000 TJ.
And since energy cannot be converted entirely to work, it's going to take much more than that to actually move the mountain. And all that extra energy will be bled out as heat.
The surface of the planet would have liquified and the water would have boiled away.
So you've got the water condensing and liquifying the surface of the earth due to the heat transfer and then you've got the tectonic activity liquifying the surface of the earth due to the energy required to move it around.
And you think a wooden boat could survive afloat on a global ocean of lava?
Why is it that we know all of the physics behind what you are suggesting and you don't? I'm still waiting for the answer to my question posed directly to you:
Have you ever had any formal training in physics? I mean real physics that you need calculus to figure out where you did the experiment of suspending a pendulum from the ceiling so you could directly calculate G (the constant of universal gravitation), where you recreated the Millikin experiment to directly measure the charge on an electron, where you measured the spectral lines of hydrogen, that sort of physics.
Again, that's high school level stuff. How much physics do you know?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2008 9:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by randman, posted 04-18-2008 3:55 PM Rrhain has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024