Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?

quote:

---

The noahic crust of the earth was bombarded with meteorites and asteroids. This shattered the crust over a period of 40 days. ---foreveryoung.
You'd think that would deserve a passing mention. God wouldn't have needed a flood to wipe out all life, the asteroids would have done it!
  —trixie

---

It was mentioned. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.--Genesis 7:11. You are assuming that all God wanted to do was wipe out all life on earth. He also wanted to recreate it from scratch. He couldn't do that with a bunch of soggy ground and rotting corpses stinking up the place. The asteroids served as the tool to break up the existing crust into reworkable tectonic material.

quote:

---

The crucial question is how much pressure the crust was putting on the water before it was fragmented. What do you think happens to 500C water (kept liquid by pressure) when that pressure is released?
  —trixie

---

You are assuming there was nothing holding the crust up and thereby the water was under tremendous pressure. There could have been huge stabilizing columns all over the place holding the crust up. There is no need for the water to be hot or under tremedous pressure.

quote:

---

So the entire crust sinks into the subterranean water. That means that your subterranean water is beneath the crust at the mantle-crust boundary. Have you any idea of the temperatures there?
  —trixie

---

It doesn't mean that at all. You are assuming the mantle crust boundary that exists today, existed 200,000 years ago. There was no core at that time either. Everything under the subterranean was very cold compared to the temperature known there today. It was at this time that accelerated radioactive decay began to kick in and the upper mantle, lower mantle, outer core, inner core began to form from an undifferentiated inital mass. There was no extraordinary heat underneath the subterranean water.Edited by foreveryoung, : correcting quotes

quote:

---

Try calculating the energy released by the conversion of the potential and kinetic energy from so many comets and asteroids into heat, and you'll find the water will be steam all right, and the surface of the Earth will be molten. Not that any macroscopic life will remain after the blast waves to see it.
The asteroid that wiped out (or at least severely impacted ;-) ) the dinosaurs was much too small to have the effect you are looking for.
  —JonF

---

You are assuming way too many things. You don't know the size of the objects or how many of them there were or over what period of time they hit the earth. The windows of heaven were opened for 150 days according to the bible. That is alot of time. The water is beneath the crust. The crust will disintegrate into fine sand before water ever starts to boil. The subterranean water will absorb the heat and so there is no need for the mantle to completely melt. If you consider the amount of heat necessary to disintegrate miles of crust into sand and the amount of heat lost when water was absorbed into the mantle, there is no need to conclude all water was vaporized.

Wow. Talk about ad-hoc un-evidenced assertions, we got a live one here!Still looking for your calculations of the energy converted to heat from those asteroid impacts, and the effect of accelerated nuclear decay on life, and how life survived those catastrophes.Ever think about how much radioactive potassium-40 you have in your body, and the effect if it's decay were accelerated enough to fit a YEC scenario?

So tell us. It's your hypothesis. Please show your working.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

A million years is a lot of time. 150 days is nothing. Another un-evidenced assertion. (Oh, and meteorite impacts don't produce sand). Let's see the calculations.

quote:

---

That's nice. Have you ever heard of kinetic energy, Foreveryoung? Do you know how much kinetic energy gets converted into heat when a 100,000-kg space rock hits the Earth at a speed of 7000 meters per second?

​

Yeah, I thought not. I get 4.9 trillion joules. Do you know how much heat that translates into? No? It's enough to heat the rock plus about 600 times the rock's weight of the rock it hit by 100 degrees Celsius. I think that even cool water might boil a bit.
  —coragyps

---

You are just one in thousands of anticreationist with an arrogant attitude that thinks we are ignorant neanderthals. Yes, I have considered all those things, and I have also considered that you assume way too much.Yes, 4.9 trillion joules is enough heat to raise 700,000 kg of crust by 100 degrees. You assume all the kinetic energy is translated into heat. WRONG! The kinetic energy could be translated into breaking lattice bonds that hold the rocks together. It takes quite a bit of energy to break 700,000 kg of rock into tiny little silicon tetrahedrals with maybe an extra iron or sulfur or calcium or sodium atom attached. Once all that is accomplished, more heat can be consumed into creating bonds that hydrate the silica tetrahedrals into new rock with high water content. There is no reason that this could not have happened. Just because heat is one of the possible outcome of kinetic energy translation doesn't mean it's the only one or the most likely.

Great so please show us the math detailing just how much of the energy went into heat.

Do you have anything besides insults? A person who ridicules and insults is afraid of something and is also afraid he doesn't have the intelligence to match his debater.

quote:

---

Still looking for your calculations of the energy converted to heat from those asteroid impacts, and the effect of accelerated nuclear decay on life, and how life survived those catastrophes.
  —JonF

---

You already calculated the energy converted to heat. The problem is that you assume all the energy is converted to heat like I already addressed. Accelerated nuclear decay would only affect life if it got anywhere near it. All the decaying nuclear material would start near the center of the earth and would take an enormous time before it got anywhere near to life on the surface.

quote:

---

Ever think about how much radioactive potassium-40 you have in your body, and the effect if it's decay were accelerated enough to fit a YEC scenario?
  —JonF

---

You are assuming noah and his family had the same radioactive potassium 40 in their bodies like we do today. It took an enormous amount of time for uranium and thorium and potassium 40 to reach the surface of the earth from where it started near the center of the earth.

quote:

---

So tell us. It's your hypothesis.
  —DrAdequate

---

That's not how it works buddy. You guys are the one who say a global flood and young earth are impossible. When I bring up a possible scenario, the onus is on you to show why it could not happen. When you do that, as trixie and others have, I show why that is not a real impossibility and show why like I just did.

quote:

---

Please show your working.
  —DrAdequate

---

Again, that is not how it works buddy. You guys are the one who make the claim of impossibility. I show you ways that it is not impossible. I just did. It is now up to YOU to show why my scenario is impossible.

quote:

---

A million years is a lot of time. 150 days is nothing.
  —JonF

---

It is more than enough time to get the job done.

quote:

---

Another un-evidenced assertion. (Oh, and meteorite impacts don't produce sand). Let's see the calculations.
  —JonF

---

We are discussing ideas here buddy. I'm not wearing a lab coat, and I don't have labratory utensils at hand, do YOU? Saying it is an un-evidenced assertion is like saying the sky is blue. It is meaningless to the discussion at hand. Meteorite impacts don't produce sand when you don't have 5 miles of subterranean water underneath you and the size of the crust is 35 miles. Those were not the conditions in noahs day.

Let's see your calculations.It would also help if you could present a list of all the claims you have made or are going to make for which you have no evidence and require a miracle to produce.Just for grins I thought I'd post something from the RATE I book, by prominent creationist Dr. Russel Humphreys:

quote:

---

Now let’s briefly consider another possible problem: were there radioactive atoms in the tissues of the creatures aboard the ark? The main ones today are 40K and 14C. If creatures aboard the ark had the same percentages of those isotopes we have in our tissues today, and the acceleration applied to them as well as to everything else, they might not have survived.

​

Carbon 14 does not seem to be a problem. There are several good reasons to think the percentage of 14C in the air and living creatures was much lower before the Flood than it is today [Humphreys, 1994, pp. 62—63]. So Noah and the other creatures aboard the ark would have acquired only a small amount of 14C by the time the Flood began. However, 40K is a problem. Even though 40K represents only about 0.01% of all the K we have in our tissues today (the other 99.99% is 39K), that would be enough to kill Noah if he underwent more than a few million radioisotopic years worth of nuclear decay. Of course, Noah may not have experienced more nuclear decay than that if most of the accelerated decay occurred during the first part of Creation week, a model we are just beginning to consider. However, let us consider where we get 40K today. Most of it comes from material which was deposited as soil or in the sea after being eroded from continental granites during the Genesis Flood. Noah, however, got his K from pre-Flood soil, soil which God had designed for a perfect world. Would God have included in that soil isotopes which He knew would become radioactive, and which would harm the creatures aboard the ark? I’m inclined to say no.

​

That no also places a constraint upon the geology of the antediluvian world. To keep radioactive atoms out of the tissues of the ark creatures, the biosphere, both soil and water, would have to remain separate from the (at least potentially) radioactive atoms of what would become the continental granites after the Flood.

---

Can you count the number of miracles he's assuming?It's convenient that your God is so accommodating, popping up another miracle whenever you want.

Another un-evidenced assertion. Let's see the numbers. Lab coats and utensils aren't necessary to do the math. List your assumptions and calculate the impact. OK, let's see a list of the conditions that were different in Noah's day and the evidence that indicates that those conditions were different. Your un-evidenced assertions are still just that no matter what you want to claim about the sky today.

You're making the positive claim of possibility, we're requesting sufficient information to evaluate that claim. The ball's in your court. Under today's conditions the scenario you propose would wipe out all macroscopic life at least twice over. List the conditions for your scenario including the evidence that those conditions were as you are assuming. You also need to address the observations we have such as the constancy of radioactive decay rates, for example The fundamental constants and their variation: observational status and theoretical motivationsSo far you're just making s**t up and assuming a miracle whenever your scenario has a problem. We know that's all you got, we've seen the same tired story many times before, we're just poking you for the fun of it.

Where is your evidence for what conditions were "in Noah's day?" I'll take scripture, even, as that is all you've got.Except I don't remember what verse says there's five miles of water beneath the crust. Or the one that says there is a crust. A simple "Genesis xx:yy" formal will be fine.

He's a "Poe".