Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 5:53 AM
25 online now:
PaulK, Porkncheese, Pressie, vimesey (4 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,657 Year: 3,694/19,786 Month: 689/1,087 Week: 58/221 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 186 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 31 of 306 (642946)
12-02-2011 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ICANT
12-02-2011 8:42 PM


Re: Catastrophic (for creationists)
The time when all land was in one mass was something like 250 million years ago.

Are you claiming that people were cavorting about that long ago? And if so, what is your evidence? (Leave the bible out of this; it's not evidence.)

Science shows that the flood could not have occurred at that time because modern humans didn't evolve until about 249.8 million years later. No modern humans, no Noah and no ark, it's that simple.

Since this is the science forum, I await your answer relying on scientific research, and not ancient myths.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2011 8:42 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2011 9:26 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 34 by Admin, posted 12-02-2011 10:15 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 32 of 306 (642947)
12-02-2011 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Coyote
12-02-2011 9:10 PM


Re: Catastrophic (for creationists)
Hi Coyote,

Coyote writes:

The time when all land was in one mass was something like 250 million years ago.

And you know that to be a fact because _____________________.

It is your clain so fill in the blank.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Coyote, posted 12-02-2011 9:10 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Coyote, posted 12-02-2011 9:33 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 37 by edge, posted 12-02-2011 11:56 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 186 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 33 of 306 (642948)
12-02-2011 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ICANT
12-02-2011 9:26 PM


Re: Catastrophic (for creationists)
And you know that to be a fact because _____________________.

It is your clain so fill in the blank.

No problem. We know that because of scientific research. And there is no scientific evidence that contradicts that information.

Let's turn this question around.

And you believe that to be incorrect because _____________________.

Remember, this is the science forum, so leave out magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, flat earth, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, crop circles, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, faked moon landings, divination, geocentrism, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, televangelists, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.

OK?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2011 9:26 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2011 10:22 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12580
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 34 of 306 (642950)
12-02-2011 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Coyote
12-02-2011 9:10 PM


Re: Catastrophic (for creationists)
Hi Coyote,

In this thread Trixie is looking for consistency with the laws of science rather than evidence.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Coyote, posted 12-02-2011 9:10 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 35 of 306 (642951)
12-02-2011 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Coyote
12-02-2011 9:33 PM


Re: Catastrophic (for creationists)
Hi Coyote,

Coyote writes:

No problem. We know that because of scientific research. And there is no scientific evidence that contradicts that information.

Could you present that scientific research to support your claim.

I hope you are not insulted by my not taking your word for evidence.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Coyote, posted 12-02-2011 9:33 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Admin, posted 12-02-2011 10:29 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 38 by edge, posted 12-03-2011 12:11 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12580
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 36 of 306 (642953)
12-02-2011 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by ICANT
12-02-2011 10:22 PM


Re: Catastrophic (for creationists)
Hi ICANT,

Trixie is not asking for evidence. She's asking for clear descriptions of where the water came from and where it went, then she'd like to examine the offered scenarios for their compatibility with known science, in other words, whether they're scientifically feasible.

Edited by Admin, : Grammar.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2011 10:22 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4470
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 37 of 306 (642954)
12-02-2011 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ICANT
12-02-2011 9:26 PM


Re: Catastrophic (for creationists)
quote:
nd you know that to be a fact because _____________________.

The continent began to rift apart during the Triassic Period, approximately 200 my ago, based on radiometric ages and geological relationships that show incipient rifting. Prior to that, North Africa and Eurasia were joined to North America. There is no other interpretaton of the data.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2011 9:26 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4470
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 38 of 306 (642955)
12-03-2011 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by ICANT
12-02-2011 10:22 PM


Re: Catastrophic (for creationists)
Could you present that scientific research to support your claim.

I worked on the rocks that were deposited during the break-up of Pangea. There is no YE explanaton for them.

I hope you are not insulted by my not taking your word for evidence.

I don't expect you would know about the geologic record here.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2011 10:22 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1081 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


(4)
Message 39 of 306 (642956)
12-03-2011 1:10 AM


I have done the calculations more than once. In fact, i think that I may have posted them on this board. At any rate, given the known quantity of water on the earth (the oceans, the atmosphere, and the water inside the crust), it would require more than 4 times the quantity of water on earth today to flood the earth to cover the Himalayas. It would have taken less water to cover Mt. Ararat, but the myth states that all land was covered.

Of course, if one wishes to argue that the various mountain ranges arose after the mythical flood, then how was the heat dissipated? The Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, the Rockies? Nonsense! The raising of such mountains in the few thousand years of the creationist scenario would have reduced the earth to magma.

Moreover, there is the problem of the latent heat released into the atmosphere by 40 days of rain. When water vapor condenses to water, it releases latent heat. It is a fact. Even though most people believe that rain cools the air, in fact, at high altitude, where the rain condenses, it warms the atmosphere.

In short, the latent heat released by water vapor that could produce 40 days of rain would have been enough to boil the oceans.

And yet we are to believe that Noah and family survived.

I have yet to see a creationist defense of an ark in a boiling ocean.


Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ICANT, posted 12-03-2011 12:56 PM pandion has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1786 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 40 of 306 (642962)
12-03-2011 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by ICANT
12-02-2011 8:42 PM


It's your model!
ICANT writes:

Trixie writes:

Are you making the point that since the Himalaya have been pushed up by India and Asia colliding, that would have occurred after the days of Peleg? Even if that was the case and we accept that there was a single land mass (which I don't, even for a nanosecond),

Are you saying you don't believe Pangaea existed?

Lets look at what I actually said

Are you making the point that since the Himalaya have been pushed up by India and Asia colliding, that would have occurred after the days of Peleg? Even if that was the case and we accept that there was a single land mass (which I don't, even for a nanosecond), there must have been mountains on your single land mass since the ark came to rest on one.

From the context (i.e., the ark coming to rest on a mountain) it's obvious that I'm referring to a single land mass at the time of the flood and it's this that I don't accept.

ICANT writes:

First I don't believe there was a mountain they are caused by plate's diving under one another and the dry land had not been divided at the time of the flood.

Did you miss the part that said Ararat was volcanic?

ICANT writes:

Why should I guess how high the land mass was?
If I have a model it will come from the Bible text not my imagination.

Because it's your model. You seem willing to use information in your model for which there is no source other than your opinion if it suits your case. Let's try another way of asking the question. How high does your model require any elevation to be? Remember that your model doesn't have mountains being pushed up until after the flood, so you have to account for having somewhere for the ark to land.

ICANT writes:

First off your source say's it is not known when the last eruption occurred. Then it says "It seems that Ararat was active in the 3rd millennium BC.

What problem do you think I would have with that?

Given the way you've worded your quote, I'd say that you believe that the two statements are contradictory. They are not. I make no claim, and neither does the source, that the eruption in the 3rd millenium BC was the last one. In fact there is argument that during an earthquake in the 1800s which buried a town, there was a minor eruption under ground water level, however that has not been established. So, to summarise, the last eruption date is unknown, but there was an eruption in the 3rd millenium BC.

All that aside, this thread is asking for the source of the water. You have to postulate a source which can contain enough water to cause a global flood since that's what your model claims. To do that, you need to have an idea of how much water would be required to cover the highest point, so how high does your model require the highest point to be, whether it's a hill, a mountain or a pimple on the face of the earth? Are you talking tens of metres, hundreds of metres or thousands of metres?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2011 8:42 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by frako, posted 12-03-2011 6:44 AM Trixie has not yet responded
 Message 44 by ICANT, posted 12-03-2011 12:16 PM Trixie has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 41 of 306 (642963)
12-03-2011 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Trixie
12-03-2011 5:23 AM


Re: It's your model!
How high does your model require any elevation to be?

In the interests of making a working model of the flood even if not supported by evidence that it actually happened, if the sea floors where at 0 elevation the watter would cover everything to a hight of 2,6 kilometers.

That is of course Rough math calculation because if seas experience a slight centrifugal effect do to the earth rotating so the same amount of watter covers a higher elevation at the equator and a lower one at the poles. The watter kind of flows uphill sort of because of the centrifugal force. If the earth would stop rotating and everything else remains the same the oceans would gather at the poles revealing a dry land around the equator.

I have a moddel that could make the flood possible.

The earths core is heating up the material inside the earth causing flows that push the earths crust in an outward direction from the center kind of the same way the sun dose it when it goes red giant. Now if some magicman or chance would introduce material that brakes/slows down nuclear reactions i think they use graffite in nuclear power plants the force at witch the hot flowing material pushes against the crust would be lower causing the earth to "shrink" a bit unleashing devastating cunamies and floods, raising and lowering of land, that could be described as a worldwide flood. If someone could introduce material that slows down nuclear reactions or if some nuclear material at the earths core that was providing a boost where to run out this scenario would be plausible but it still dint happen.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Trixie, posted 12-03-2011 5:23 AM Trixie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Butterflytyrant, posted 12-03-2011 10:11 AM frako has responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2502 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 42 of 306 (642968)
12-03-2011 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by frako
12-03-2011 6:44 AM


Re: It's your model!
Hey Frako,

I expect to see your post quote mined in future creationist debates.

something like this -

quote:

LUV4God says -

I know the flood happened. And the scientists know it to. I have been reading from a peer reviewed science website (EvC forum) and a European in the field of science has been researching the flood. How excited was I when he announced that he had solved the mystery. The scientist said he had "a working model of the flood" that showed that "if the sea floors where at 0 elevation the watter would cover everything to a hight of 2,6 kilometers." He went on to explain "The earths core is heating up the material inside the earth causing flows that push the earths crust in an outward direction from the center kind of the same way the sun dose it when it goes red giant. " God could certainly do this. And who knows, maybe these were the conditions back then, after all, we know that light travelled at different speeds long ago. The scientist went on to say "the hot flowing material pushes against the crust would be lower causing the earth to "shrink" a bit unleashing devastating cunamies and floods, raising and lowering of land, that could be described as a worldwide flood." Science supports the flood of Noah and they ahve been able to explain exactly how it was done. TAKE THAT ATHIESTS!



I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by frako, posted 12-03-2011 6:44 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by frako, posted 12-03-2011 10:24 AM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 43 of 306 (642969)
12-03-2011 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Butterflytyrant
12-03-2011 10:11 AM


Re: It's your model!
I expect to see your post quote mined in future creationist debates.

Haha certainly hope not

Thing is if this scenario where to have happened we would see tones of evidence that it happened, things like an enormous amount of volcanoes erupting everywhere in the world at the same time, flood deposits everywhere in the world, geological evidence in mountains that would show they where raised abruptly the same kind of evidence in chasms that would show they descended abruptly ...... There would be no denying the fact that it happened.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Butterflytyrant, posted 12-03-2011 10:11 AM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 44 of 306 (642971)
12-03-2011 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Trixie
12-03-2011 5:23 AM


Re: It's your model!
Hi Trixie,

Trixie writes:

it's obvious that I'm referring to a single land mass at the time of the flood and it's this that I don't accept.

Well it was not obvious to me.

The statement: "Even if that was the case and we accept that there was a single land mass (which I don't, even for a nanosecond),"

Even if we accept a single land mass which I don't, even for a nanosecond. Tells me you were saying you did not believe in a single land mass. I am not a mind reader say what you mean and mean what you say.

Now that you have explained what you meant to say, why do you not believe there was a single land mass at the time of the flood?

I am argueing what the text says not what you, I or anyone else thinks.

quote:
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.



Source

That says the land was where the water wasn't so it was in one place.

quote:
Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Source

That says the same thing in Genesis 1:10 that was called Earth was divided in the days of Peleg (during his lifetime).

So far I got enough water to cover all the dry land as it was covered in Genesis 1:9 There was no dry land until the water was gathered into one place.

Water went somewhere for the dry land to be able to appear.

If Mt Everest or the Himalayas was on that land mass enough water went somewhere that it was uncovered.

Now I got enough water to cover whatever land mass existed in Genesis 1:10 that was called dry land. The water has just been removed to a different location.

Trixie writes:

Did you miss the part that said Ararat was volcanic?

No I did not miss that it was volcanic.

Trixie writes:

How high does your model require any elevation to be?

A minimum of 1 inch as there was dry land.

Trixie writes:

Remember that your model doesn't have mountains being pushed up until after the flood, so you have to account for having somewhere for the ark to land.

So the ark came to rest in the region that the mountains of Ararat exist today.

What's the problem?

Trixie writes:

Given the way you've worded your quote, I'd say that you believe that the two statements are contradictory.

Sorry it was not clear enough that I was saying regardless of when the last eruption was why would I have a problem with an eruption in the third century BC.

Trixie writes:

All that aside, this thread is asking for the source of the water. You have to postulate a source which can contain enough water to cause a global flood since that's what your model claims. To do that, you need to have an idea of how much water would be required to cover the highest point, so how high does your model require the highest point to be, whether it's a hill, a mountain or a pimple on the face of the earth? Are you talking tens of metres, hundreds of metres or thousands of metres?

However much water was required to cover the highest point of land mass on Earth was available in Genesis 1:9 as there was no dry land until the water was gathered into one place.

There is no place in the text that says how much land mass there was or what the sea level of that land mass was or how deep the water was around that land mass.

So far I have enough water to cover all land mass on the Earth.
Water is gathered to one place and dry land appears.
Land mass flooded with water called Noah's flood.
Earth divided after the flood, in the days of Peleg.

Now we can speculate where the water went when it was reduced to the point the dry land appeared.

Regardless of where the water was it would have been available to cover the dry land at a later time.

So the source of the water is available, now what?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Trixie, posted 12-03-2011 5:23 AM Trixie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Trixie, posted 12-03-2011 5:05 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 45 of 306 (642972)
12-03-2011 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by pandion
12-03-2011 1:10 AM


Heat
Hi pandion,

pandion writes:

Of course, if one wishes to argue that the various mountain ranges arose after the mythical flood, then how was the heat dissipated?

If the continents were moved in 1 nanosecond how much heat would be created?

How much water would be evaporated into the asthenosphere and mantle in the process of cooling that movement?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by pandion, posted 12-03-2011 1:10 AM pandion has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by DrJones*, posted 12-03-2011 2:05 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 47 by Larni, posted 12-03-2011 2:07 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 305 by Phat, posted 05-19-2018 3:55 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019