Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 12:11 PM
34 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,943 Year: 11,979/19,786 Month: 1,760/2,641 Week: 269/708 Day: 44/52 Hour: 1/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
19NextFF
Author Topic:   Some water measurements for the Flood
Faith
Member
Posts: 32148
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 16 of 276 (729841)
06-19-2014 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Minnemooseus
06-19-2014 10:55 PM


Re: Calculations of water depth if the Earth were a current sea level sphere
if the Earth were a current sea level sphere, the water covering depth would be about 2560 meters

I'm apparently missing what you mean about what exactly you are measuring, bringing sea floor up and continent level down and so on. Are you talking about the depth that would cover the land as it is now, mountains and all etc., or something else?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-19-2014 10:55 PM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-20-2014 1:08 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3730
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 17 of 276 (729843)
06-20-2014 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
06-19-2014 11:46 PM


Re: Calculations of water depth if the Earth were a current sea level sphere
I'm making the Earth a smooth sphere, with all surfaces the same elevation. The Earth radius/diameter is that which is the current sea level. I'm then distributing the volume of the oceans over this sphere. If my calculation were correct, then you would have a uniform water depth of about 2560 meters.

In other words, perfectly smooth continents and ocean basins, all at the same elevation, covered by 2560 meters of water.

In this approximation, you could then add mountains no higher that 2560 meters, if the water was to reach the mountain tops. 2560 meters is essentially nothing relative to the Earths radius - The solid surface is still essentially smooth.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Add 3rd paragraph.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 11:46 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 06-20-2014 5:09 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 276 (729844)
06-20-2014 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Minnemooseus
06-20-2014 1:08 AM


Re: Calculations of water depth if the Earth were a current sea level sphere
The easiest way to do the calculation is to consider the water to be a thin shell covering current the surface of the earth. So the volume of water would be 4*pi*r^2 * h.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-20-2014 1:08 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 19 of 276 (729845)
06-20-2014 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
06-19-2014 6:25 AM


Hi Faith.

Why don't you say say that God did it with his divine power? Why does it need to be mechanically possible (as it is not) when God could simply will it that way?

All the best.

Edited by Larni, : Blu ray bonus features.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 6:25 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 06-20-2014 5:48 AM Larni has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32148
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 20 of 276 (729846)
06-20-2014 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Larni
06-20-2014 5:20 AM


Hi Larni

You ask:

Why don't you say say that God did it with his divine power? Why does it need to be mechanically possible (as it is not) when God could simply will it that way?

And I believe I answered this back in

Message 9 where I say

I'd have no problem considering it a miracle if the Bible did, but it doesn't.

And the following Message 10 where I say

...there is nothing in the Biblical account to suggest it was anything but a natural occurrence, although, yes, circumstances were different enough to require a non-uniformitarian point of view to understand it. I have no objection on any other grounds to regarding it as a miracle: The Bible doesn’t so YECs don’t.

I hope this answers your question.

And as to whether it is mechanically possible, not being able to prove that doesn't mean it isn't, and there's so much else that fits the Flood scenario (strata, fossils, argued to death here many times) I feel no need to abandon the attempt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 06-20-2014 5:20 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Larni, posted 06-20-2014 7:18 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 06-21-2014 7:24 AM Faith has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 21 of 276 (729847)
06-20-2014 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
06-19-2014 7:30 PM


Re: two sources
But since evaporation can't explain the removal of that much water in a period of something like five months we need another explanation. Which is where the dropping of the sea floor becomes a possibility.

Why would this be? How can you reject any explanation that is consistent with the Bible? And evaporation certainly would be.

The Bible does not just say "fountains of the deep" and "raining" are the sources. The Bible says that the opening of the "fountains of the deep" and "the windows of heaven" were the sources of water.

The Bible also tells us that the canopy was still present well after the Flood was over in Psalms 148: 4-6.

In short your explanation is not consistent with the literal words of the Bible, and you are as guilty as anyone else here of departing from the Bible just because science intrudes. So what kind of silly game are you playing here?

And no, it is not even the "Creationist" game. Because Creationists are not of one mind about the processes that took place. AIG absolutely denies that the canopy model works, while ICR is willing to postulate a sun that is only 1% as active that of the current sun in order to keep the planet from baking under a canopy. In both cases we see Creationists picking different parts of science to agree with or disagree with.

ABE: Since supposedly the scientific imagination of an actual scientist would be better at this than our poor creationist attempts, it should be an interesting attempt worthy of your training.

Actually, the game you are playing is sheer folly. There are a thousand different points of departure from science, and no particular reason to reject any non-scientific explanation given that all science can be scrapped to produce the result you want. It seems that about the only explanation you won't accept is that God exerted himself in the slightest.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 7:30 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 06-20-2014 6:22 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32148
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 22 of 276 (729849)
06-20-2014 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by NoNukes
06-20-2014 5:54 AM


Re: two sources
Sorry, you seem to be highly exercised about some egregious error you think I've committed but I'm afraid I can't make any sense out of what you are saying.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by NoNukes, posted 06-20-2014 5:54 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by NoNukes, posted 06-20-2014 6:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 276 (729850)
06-20-2014 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
06-20-2014 6:22 AM


Re: two sources
I can't make any sense out of what you are saying.

I said you were a liar and a fraud.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 06-20-2014 6:22 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 24 of 276 (729851)
06-20-2014 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
06-19-2014 7:09 PM


I'd have no problem considering it a miracle if the Bible did, but it doesn't.

Well, the Bible makes it quite clear that God caused the flood. If he didn't cause it by a miracle, what did he do, turn on his rain machine? Pull the lever that opens the hatch that lets the fountains of the deep out?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 7:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by NoNukes, posted 06-20-2014 6:54 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 06-20-2014 8:37 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 276 (729852)
06-20-2014 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
06-20-2014 6:42 AM


Pull the lever that opens the hatch that lets the fountains of the deep out?

Here is one Creationists take on that question:

http://www.kjvbible.org/geysers.html

quote:
This "mist" seems to indicate that there was a great deal of heated water present under the Earth and relatively close to the surface, or at least making its way to the surface at various places in order to produce this mist. A Divine reconfiguration of the Earth's geology, during the process of the seven days of Genesis when God made the "foundation of the world" (See the chapter entitled "Creation or Catabolism?"), is the only possible explanation. Surely the Lord knew that He had created an unstable situation that would eventually cause the flood centuries later in the days of Noah. Granted, this is not a scientific answer, but one that is theologically sound given our understanding of God's omnipotence and foreknowledge.

In other words, when God told Noah about the Flood and its cause, he was simply acting as a very accurate meteorologist.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-20-2014 6:42 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 26 of 276 (729853)
06-20-2014 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
06-20-2014 5:48 AM


And I believe I answered this back in

Message 9 where I say

Thanks, Faith. I post before I read the rest of the thread.

All the best.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 06-20-2014 5:48 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5014
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 27 of 276 (729855)
06-20-2014 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
06-19-2014 7:11 PM


Water was water, conservation of energy was conservation of energy, and thermodynamics was thermodynamics or else life anything like we know it would be impossible.

You are invoking magic again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 7:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32148
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 28 of 276 (729856)
06-20-2014 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
06-20-2014 6:42 AM


why not miracle
I'd have no problem considering it a miracle if the Bible did, but it doesn't.

Well, the Bible makes it quite clear that God caused the flood. If he didn't cause it by a miracle, what did he do, turn on his rain machine? Pull the lever that opens the hatch that lets the fountains of the deep out?

I already answered this but can do it again I guess.

For most natural events there is a series of causes that are all natural. Miracles are usually pretty easy to identify, something like raising a person to life from death, causing a depleted supply of oil or grain to increase to overflowing, causing fire to come down from heaven and consume a water-soaked sacrifice, making the sun move backward, turning water into wine, feeding thousands with a few pieces of bread and fish.

There is nothing in scripture that indicates that the release of the fountains of the deep or the rain from heaven was anything but a natural if unusual event, which would have been brought about by a chain of natural events --ABE: even perhaps due to the condition NoNukes describes as persisting from the Creation. /ABE.

God is said in scripture to cause everything: "I make peace and create evil" is in Isaiah 45 where He also lists more things He does; "If there is calamity in a city won't God have done it" is in Amos 3. There are many passages where God says He's going to do something like bring the Assyrians against Israel. In Ezekiel it's a theme "Then they shall know that I am the Lord" when He does various things to punish Israel, make the land desolate etc. He also says He's going to raise up a prophet. None of these things in themselves is anything miraculous that God says He does or is going to do. Peace and war just happen a lot on earth, calamity just happens, enemies invade, events may lay a land desolate, prophets arise etc., all in the normal course of events. All scripture does is show us that God has a hand in all of it, which otherwise we wouldn't think of.

In Exodus He does say He's going to "do marvels" too, however:

"And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee."

God is the God of the ordinary and the natural, as well as the extraordinary. Unless an event is clearly supernatural or scripture gives us some other reason to think it is, there is no reason to take it as supernatural.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-20-2014 6:42 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by NoNukes, posted 06-20-2014 10:26 AM Faith has responded
 Message 32 by Tangle, posted 06-20-2014 11:04 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Tangle, posted 06-20-2014 11:07 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-20-2014 4:45 PM Faith has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 29 of 276 (729858)
06-20-2014 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
06-20-2014 8:37 AM


Re: why not miracle
None of these things in themselves is anything miraculous that God says He does or is going to do.

When God says he is going to open the windows of Heaven, there is every reason to believe that the act being spoken of is supernatural. In fact, that is the obvious explanation for everything that does not happen according to physics. Why is it not a use of nature to allow the sun to move backwards, and yet it is a use of nature to suspend water in a canopy above the earth. There is absolutely nothing textual to support any distinction between those things.

Certainly not just because you say so.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 06-20-2014 8:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by JonF, posted 06-20-2014 10:52 AM NoNukes has responded
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 06-20-2014 11:01 AM NoNukes has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5014
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 30 of 276 (729859)
06-20-2014 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by NoNukes
06-20-2014 10:26 AM


Re: why not miracle
Remember, Faith knows the Mind of God. She's infallible.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by NoNukes, posted 06-20-2014 10:26 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 06-20-2014 12:12 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
19NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019