Does the evidence support the Flood? (attn: DwarfishSquints)

The "Confessions of a Former Christian" thread has drifted somewhat off-topic, and spiraled into a discussion of Flood apologetics. I'm proposing this thread to continue the discussion in a more appropriate location.The last reply from DwarfishSquints, with some formatting added by me for easier reading: Once again, DS, there is not enough water on the entire planet, even including all of teh subterranean water, all water trapped in rocks, all of the moisture in the atmosphere, and all of teh water frozen in the polar ice caps to Flood the entire world to a depth of 15 cubits above even the continental shelves - that means, even without mountains, there is still not enough water.Let's do the math for you:A "cubit" was a unit of length in ancient times, and had a variety of measurements depending on the country of origin. The Hebrew cubit was typically between 14 and 18 English inches long - this is one of the shortest measurements (making it the most generous one to use, since it requires far less water than, say, the Egyptian cubit which was about 3 English feet in length). I'll be using 1 Cubit = 18" for the purposes of this calculation, because it gives you the best possible benefit of the doubt.The Bible states that the Earth was Flooded to a depth of 15 cubits (the Bible includes the mountains, but once again for ease of calculation and to give you the best possible benefit of the doubt, we'll ignore mountains compeltely).15 Cubits = 22.5 feet = 6.858 metersSo, we need to cover all of the continents, excluding mountains, to a depth of almost 7 meters.The surface area of the Earth is 510,065,600 km^2. Unfortunately, we can't simply calculate the amount of water needed to cover this surface area by 6.858 meters, because the continents are not at sea level - if they were, we'd all be standing in a puddle every time the tides came in.It's very difficult to arrive at a reasonable number for the height of the continents - all of the average elevations include mountains, and aside fom that the continents still vary greatly in elevation. For the sake of argument, I have picked Indiana, a state near the middle of the US that is not a part of any mountain ranges. Indiana's average elevation is 210 meters above sea level (Colorado, in contrast, is over 1000 meters above sea level in places; the middle east is almost completely above 500 meters) - so we need to raise sea level by at minimum 216.858 meters, and this is with us granting a much "flatter" Earth that includes no mountains and ignores the fact that even non-mountainous regions are still frequently at very high elevations above sea level.To be more specific, we need to raise the sea level by 210 meters to make it even with our land mass, and then add that amount of water to the amount of water needed to cover the entire surface area of the Earth in 6.858 meters to provide the global Flood as described in the Bible.The surface of the oceans is approximately 361,000,000 km^2.361,000,000 km^2 * .210 km = 75,810,000 km^3 of water needed to bring sea level up to the average elevation of Indiana.510,065,600 km^2 * .006858 km = 3,498,029.88 km^3 of additional water required for the Flood.75,810,000 km^3 + 3,498,029.88 km^3 = 79,308,029.88 km^3 total water required to be added to the oceans to cover the continental landmasses not including mountains to a depth of 6.858 meters assuming an average elevation of 210 meters, which is a more than generous assumption considering that most areas are significantly higher.A large quantity of the ice in the ice caps will not have a significant effect because they are already in water - melting their entire load of ice will not raise sea level significantly. The relevant portion is that which rests on land, because all of that water is added to the oceans. For the sake of the argument and once again to give you the biggest possible advantage, we'll assume that all of the polar ice rests on land, and all of it will add to the water in the ocean. This is massively inaccurate, but it's in your favor to demonstrate how wrongheaded your model is.The total amount of ice trapped in the polar ice caps is a little more than 34,500,000 km^3 (this is the total of Greenland and Antarctica, which make up about 90% of the ice caps). Note that this is less than half of the water required to Flood the Earth - basically, you haven't even brought sea level up to the average height of the continental shelves yet. Sure, coastal regions are devastated, but inland regions don't even feel a change. It's not a global Flood.So now let's add in the total amount of subterranean water and the water in the atmosphere.There is only about 12,900 km^3 water in the atmosphere at any given time - a drop in the proverbial bucket. Every drop of water contained in every cloud in the world could fall to Earth and it wouldn't even make a significant contribution to a global Flood.There is approximately 23,400,000 km^3 water total trapped underground.Adding these up:34,500,000 km^3 from the ice caps + 12,900 km^3 from the atmosphere + 23,400,000 km^3 from all underground sources = 57,912,900 km^3The amount we calculated as necessary to Flood the Earth as described in the Bible was 79,308,029.88 km^3.What does this mean?If you by some physics-violating miracle take all of the water in the ice caps, all of the water from underground, and all of the water in the atmosphere, you will still be over 21,000,000 km^3 short. That's about 1/4 of what we said was needed.There is not enough water on the entire planet to Flood the Earth as claimed in the Bible, even ignoring mountains, giving an absurdly low average elevation for the continents, ignoring all of the facts that make taking all of the water on the planet out of the atmosphere and up from the ground and melting it from the ice caps completely impossible, and giving the Creationist side the most favorable measurements and assumptions possible. It's not even close.If you mention again your little "idea" that the water in space was moved there from Earth, well...I'll outright call you insane. Water is one of the top ten most common molecules in the entire Universe - if all of the water in space came from the Earth, the oceans would be larger than our galaxy (okay, I'm pulling a rough estimate out of my ass, but the frequency of water is true). And of course you would need to propose some mechanism by which water is ejected at escape velocity from the Earth - that's a neat trick. If you say "miracle," you admit that you have no evidence for your "idea."You also bring up "some movement" of geological features, resulting in the formation of the mountains, etc. But this is yet another gigantic problem, DS: a flood cannot deposit sediments at a level higher than the flood itself reaches. If the flood doesn't cover the mountains, it can't create the mountains.You may start referring to "hydroplate theory" or "catastrophic plate tectonics," but both of these are total non-starters as far as geology is concerned. They require so much geological activity that a Flood would be the least of the world's problems - catastrophic plate tectonics in particular causes enough heat to be released in such a short amount of time that all of the water would have boiled away, and teh Earth would have been a molten ball of slag. No little boat filled with animals is going to survive that.The evidence we have is quite simply not consistent with a global Flood.There are many other arguments against the Flood, but this is already getting long, and I've only started replying to you, so I'll leave it at that for now. But that's not what we find in the geological record. Why are stone and metal tools, which cannot run for their lives and which do not float even a little, always found above dinosaurs and other creatures? Why are faster creatures like the velociraptor that were extremely light and should have not only fled to high groundbut should also have been somewhat bouyant always found below wooly mammoths that were also supposedly killed in the Flood, but which would have been slower to find high ground and were likely less buoyant?The evidence we have is quite simply not consistent with a global Flood.I think this is enough for a single thread. I'd include your ridiculous accusations regarding Darwin being "an inbreeder," or your Irreducible Complexity argument, or your halfhearted attack on abiogenesis, but that just makes the topic far too broad.Geology and the Great Flood, please.

Feel free. They're from multiple websites, actually. I fully admit that my numbers are the result of google-fu, and if you (or better yet any resident geologists or oceanographers) take issue with any specific number and think you have a more accurate source, by all means provide your figure and your reasoning.As for my sources, there are severl, so let's see if I can find them all in my history: Groundwater estimates
Atmospheric waterThis site gives a lower estimate for the total in ice caps that I used...but of course I was trying to be as generous as possible to the Flood position. This is a USGS site - it's maintained by the United States Geological Survey. I don't see the site I used for the ice caps in my history, but again, I used a significantly higher number than the USGS estimates (as I recall, it's roughly a 10,000,000 km^3 difference) which is a significant advantage for the Creationist side, and yet the numbers are still insufficient.The surface area of the Earth was from Wiki - if you google "surface area Earth" you'll see my number right on top. I used the same method to research the surface area of the oceans.My numbers for average elevations were difficult to come by, as I mentioned in my original post - since I was trying to ignore mountains, and mountains are necessarily included in average elevation figures, I simply looked at non-mountainous inland regions that would have needed to be flooded, and picked one of the lower regeons (basically I saw that Indiana was one of teh lower elevations in teh US, it's distantly land-locked, it's not part of a mountain range, and it's where I was born). I also mentioned the average elevation of teh middle-east, which I observed on an online topographical map. Forgive me - I do not have my sources.All of this is a very amateurish attempt at gaining a very rough estimate on terms as friendly to the Creationist side as possible without being too ridiculous (I could have picked an elevation of 20 meters, but the vast majority of the continental landmass is an order of magnitude higher than that). If you think you have a better set of numbers to work with, please provide them and I will recalculate. I'm talking about the current elevation of Indiana. The possibility of additional sediment deposits and other Creationist arguments are the reasons I used such an arbitrarily low elevation for my initial figure. Again, the average elevation in the middle-east is over twice as high, and a great deal of the US is even higher than that. *sigh*No. I was the only one performing these calculations, unless you'd like to include the fine people at Google, or the guys at Microsoft who programmed the calculator application."We" was meant only to imply agreement with the calculations I had just made. If you disagree with those calculations, by all means provide your reasoning and rebuttal. 1) I'm not a scientist.
2) Given the numbers and calculations I provided, and global Flood in the sense of simultaneously covering the entire Earth with water to a depth of 15 cubits is impossible. Even a scientist will occasionally use that word when it is warranted. If you like, take it to mean "so improbable as to have the same probability as a penny's worth of copper coating the Earth to a depth of 1". When there is insufficient material to perform the required task, the task as defined is impossible given the set amount of material. The entire point of the initial conversation was the lack of evidence for Biblical accuracy. Allowing miracles that specifically cover up contrary evidence allows the same type of thinking that says we could all be in the Matrix; yes, it's possible. No, there's no reason to think so. That was me responding to DS' claim. You are correct - mountains are not the result of sedimentary formations, except when sedimentary rock is pushed upwads by tectonic plate movements (which is why we sometimes find sedimentary rock and aquatic fossils on mountaintops).DS claimed that the mountains were created during the Flood becasue there were no mountains (at least none of the height we see today) prior to that event; this means that either the Flood created the mountains as a sedimentary process (which we know is false, but I chose to point out that this meant even more water would be necessary as a different avenue of attack), or tectonic movements would have needed to speed up so as to complete billions of years of motion in the 150 days that the Earth was submerged. This is called "catastrophic plate tectonics," and if you utter those three words in teh presence of a geologist he will laugh at you, and possibly provide you with a tinfoil hat. The amount of energy required to not only speed up but also slow down continental movements to such a degree as to form mountains in less than a year is astronomical. The heat from the friction would have, as I said, turned the Earth's crust into a molten ball of slag. The Flood would have been the least of Noah's worries, as all of the water vaporized from the extreme heat. Exactly. Which would produce evidence that we simply do not see - continental movements, even those underwater, do not happen without consequences. This is the reason we have such things as volcanoes. Squeezing the amount of geological activity he's talking about into such a short timeframe has catastrophic results that not only would we be able to detect today, but also would have killed Noah and destroyed his little boat. And as I said, this is the result of the very process that creates mountains: uplift from tectonic plate motion. Again, speeding this process up to the degree required by the Flood model would have detectable and catastrophic results. This process takes many, many years.As a side note to the geological facet of this conversation, you'll note that in many places the rock has been bent by the extreme pressures involved. In others where more rapid motion has occurred (think earthquakes), the rock is fractured rather than bent. Folding of rock requires slow, constant pressure - this is only possible given extremely long timeframes. I've now given you my sources. Feel free to dispute them if you feel you have a better source. Yes, but water only accumulates on Earth - it can't leave without being sent up on a spaceship. This means that, while most of the water on Earth likely arrived in the form of icy comets, we have never had more water on Earth than we have right now - so my calculations are once again the most generous possible for the Creationist side. The numbers I provided also included subterranean water (the "fountains of the deep" seem to require it, anyway). That's not quite the way it works. Water doesn't tend to be "made" here on Earth except when we do it in chemistry labs. Hydrogen is such an easily reactive atom that it tends to bond with otehr atoms very, very quickly - like Oxygen. Per Wikipedia's entry on Earth's Atmosphere, Hydrogen accounts for only 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%) of the air around us, becasue it tends to bond with something almost immediately. It can't be stored as hydrogen naturally without bonding to something else. Hell, we have difficulty storing Hydrogen gas - the atoms are so small the gas leaks from even the smallest fissure, and once it's out it'll bond to somethign else fairly quickly (remember the Hindenburg? Yeah, that's what happens when Hydrogen and Oxygen get together with even the smallest spark - you can't really keep them seperated, they form water immediately). And yet the water would have still needed to cover Indiana at the present elevation in order to deposit those sediments. The water can hardly deposit sediments higher than the water level! And localized floods, like the flash floods of the American southwest, can do that. Of course, given a muddy area, it's also possible for many creatures over a long time to become trapped and fossilized, giving the "piled up" look.The fact is, there isn't enough water to Flood the Earth a claimed in the Bible. If you want to discuss sedimentary layers, we can do that as well - that evidence contradicts a global Flood even more strongly.

Then support your assertion. My numbers were taken from teh United States Geological Survey website, as I linked, or from sites which gave numbers more favorable to the Creationist side. If you believe the numbers are inaccurate, then support your assertion with evidence. That's because there is even more evidence with better arguments from other information, such as the actual sorting of sedimentary layers, Creationist insistance that the Grand Canyon and other such features could have been created by a Flood, etc.But once again, Wumpini, popularity is irrelevant - refute my assertion or concede. You haven't done that yet, you've simply made the baseless asserion that my numbers are "weak." How are they weak, Wumpini? Do you have more accurate numbers, and a way to back them up? This is a science forum, which demands evidence be provided with assertions and rebuttals. I have provided evidence for my claim. You must now provide evidence in order to refute it.Else you're nothing more than a child saying "nu uh!" That's pretty much it. But if you don't have the time to actively participate in the debate, then stay out of it. Bare assertions are not looked on favorably in the science section. A compeltely accurate calculation is extremely difficult, which is the entire purpose behind leaning towards the data favoring the Creationist model in every single case. I chose my numbers so as to give the maximum advantage to the Creationist side - if teh calculations fail even then, does this not mean the accurate calculation would be even worse for the Creationist side?A real calculation would be far more complicated than mine, becasue as you raise sea level you face diminishing returns -the surface area of the water increases as more land is covered, requiring more water to raise sea level each meter. My calculation ignored these diminishing returns, meaning an accurate calculation will require vastly more water. I also assumed a rather low elevation for the average continental height in order to compeltely ignore mountains and once again "fudge" the math in favor of the Creationists. An accurate calculation would once again require even more water.My polar ice cap calculations, as I stated in my opening post, assumed that all of the polar ice currently rests on land when it does not. This means the effect of melting ice caps would be far less than what I calculated - I once again "fudged" the math in favor of the Creationist side.I never claimed my numbers resembled an accurate calculation, Wumpini. I specifically stated, repeatedly, that I was using numbers that favored the Creationist side whenever possible, and that my methodology was adjusted to favor the Creationist side whenever possible. That there is still not enough water even grossly underestimating the water requirements and grossly overestimating the amount of water that can be added to the oceans means that the Creationist position is solidly debunked. I did state my position. I did state my assumptions. And I provided the sources of my numbers when requested.Would you like me to recalculate using only the numbers from teh USGS, which were less favorable to the Creationist model? It would be more accurate, seeing as the USGS site is run by actual geologists. It only makes things worse for the Creationist model, but I can do that if you'd like. Hydrogen is the least dense gas in existence - it rises above all of teh more dense molecules, reaching the upper atmosphere where it can be slightly bled off. Water, on the other hand, is far heavier, and never reaches so high in meaningful quantities - that's why clouds don't escape into space.This has zero effect on my calculations, and your clumsy attempt to cast doubt is irrelevant until you back up your assertion with evidence.

But that was the whole point, Wumpini. As Percy attempted to explain to you, all of my assumptions and calculations were intentionally biased towards the Creationist side in the extreme.If the conclusion is the same even when everything is biased towards the opposing view, the opposing view becomes ridiculously falsified. The standard of accuracy is already swung farther than any reasonable gologist would allow towards your side. Then why are you commenting? This seriously appears to be posturing for an "I can prove you're wrong but don't have the time" typical Creationist backpedal later on. Forgive me if that's not what you're attempting, Wumpini, but we've seen teh like many, many times before.And if you don't have time to debate, there's an answer to that: simply don't do so. Acceptable for now. That's good. The cubit measurement, as you'll notice, is unnecessarily generous towards the Creationist side. The 1-cubit = roughly 1 meter measurement used by some cultures would have been significantly worse off. You see again that I was being excessively generous - instead of attempting to be completely objective, I swung all of teh bias in your favor so that bias on my part would no longer be a factor. False. Your "geological assumptions" depend entirely on a level of geological morphology never observed, of mountains being raised and massive depressions being lowered in just 150 days.Do you have any idea how much heat would be released by raising a mountain in even 150 years, let alone days? Your "flat Earth" model is utterly ridiculous - to shift the Earth from the shape you propose into what has been documented over the past several thousand years would have effects on the planet that would make the dinosaur-killing asteroid look like a mosquito bite. I'm sorry Wumpini, I can't leave out geological concerns when you have just proposed "catastrophic plate tectonics."I used Indiana exclusively becasue it's a relatively low-lying elevation in the middle of a continent, as opposed to the 500-1000+ meter elevations found elsewhere. Once again, I was shifting the bias in favor of your position, and yet you're insisting we should use an assumption that not only demands more, but liquifies the crust of the Earth.And once again, as I pointed out before, if a sedimentary deposit is left by a flood, the flood waters must have reached above the highest point of the deposit, or else there is no mechanism by which the flood can place the sediment. Since you are proposing that the elevation of Indiana could have been the result of sediment built up during the Flood, your own position requires the Flood to have covered Indiana at its present elevation.It's quite literally a case of me giving you an inch, and you taking a mile. What numbers would you have me use? Arbitrary numbers extracted from my rectum with no consideration for observed patterns or the effects of overly drastic changes, like what you're doing?We know the amount of water on Earth at the time becasue the amount of water on Earth cannot decrease (except again through processes such as electrolysis in the lab - these are not significantly abundant processes in nature). Water can arrive on Earth from a comet at any time, but it can't leave without being ejected at escape velocity - a very difficult feat, particularly for several billion cubic kilometers of water.The amount of water currently on Earth is what we call an upper limit. It's the maximum amount of water that conceivably could have existed in the past becasue there is no mechanism by which the water can ever leave. You aren't thinking very hard. The total amount of water on the planet never changes - it can change locations, but it cannot leave the planet. That is the total amount of groundwater on Earth, as determined by the US Geological Survey. We do have excellent methods of estimating this number, you know - it's not a number pulled from thin air.As to the water we use...did you ever stop to consider why environmental agencies concern themselves with groundwater runoff? When we use water, Wumpini, it is returned to the water cycle through evaporation, direct absorption into the ground, or being dumped into a river. Wells go dry only becasue that partcular water source has dried up, but that water is still on Earth as water, and will very likely become groundwater again at some point.Once again, Wumpini - water pumped from underground doesn't magically disappear. My numbers calculated for all of the water on the entire planet being used for the express purpose of Flooding the land. I allwed all of teh groundwater to be used, even though such a thing would be impossible. I allowed all of the water in the atmosphere to be used, even though compeltely drying the atmosphere is impossible without compeltely stopping the natural process of evaporation (and increasing the hydration of the atmosphere too high leads to blotting out the Sun, so that's not really an option either). I allowed all of the polar ice to melt and affect the sea level, even though this would require global warming on a scale that would make a Flood unnecessary effort to kill the world, and even though msot of the ice is already in the water and so would not affect sea level as much.Go ahead and move a bunch of the water from the ocean to nderground, Wumpini. All it does is lower sea level and increase the groundwater. It doesn't change the total. This is basic algebra. And you claim this how? By insisting an even more favorable view, including a compeltely flat Earth that you imagined from thin air?Look, Wumpini, we can construct a model of an Earth that could have been Flooded. We can. The question is, could such an Earth become the world we see today? The answer is "not without seriously violating all of the known laws of physics in ways that make the intended purpose of such a Flood compeltely moot." Why? Demonstrate immediately an example of a flood causing volcanic activity, or a flood that changes the ocean floor in any significant way (I'll settle for a hurricane that seriously affects sediment deposits more than 100 meters below the surface). Demosntrate an example of a flood that can deposit sediment at an elevation greater than the highest water level. If you cannot, then you are making compeltely unsupported assertions.Creationists love to claim "the Flood could have casued the Grand Canyon" or "the Flood would have totally changed all of geology," but they never propose any sort of mechanism for such compeltely baseless assertions. Then a Flood would have been the least of everyone's worries, Wumpini. If you are seriously suggesting catastrophic global volcanology as the mechanism behind changing the face of the Earth, you have a few problems.You need a global layer of consistant igneous rock from where all of this volcanism poured lava and altered the entire face of teh Earth, and this igneous rock must be consistent with that produced by underwater volcanoes.You then need to explain why that much force and energy being released didn't boil away the Flood itself and vaporize Noah and his little boat. Do you have any idea what you're suggesting?No, I didn't think so. Mt St Helens is nothing compared to what you're suggesting, and we would most certainly see evidence of such activity today. Or not, since humanity would be extinct, but you get the point. And your answer is not only wrong, it is laughably so. You have refuted nothing, and instead proposed outlandishly insane ideas to swing the bias even farther towards your side, to the degree that your assumptions don't even have as much of a hold on reality as mine. Given an inch, you are trying to steal the mile.As for the other "theories," each one that I have seen has been so thoroughly debunked that anyone who seriously believes in them should hang their heads in ignorant shame. If you have a "theory" that could explain how the Flood could have happened despite insufficient water, by all means do so, with evidence to back up your claim.If you cannot do so, and you have nothing more than your bare assertions and "alternatives"t aht have either no connection to reality or compeltely violate the laws of physics, then concede the argument. This is a debate forum in the science section where evidence is demanded, not the Free For All where "oooh, I'll bet this happened!" is acceptable. Your fantasies have no place here until you provide evidence to back them up.And teh Flood is nothing more than a fantasy. You apparently think that compressing billions of years worth of tectonic activity into 150 days is realistic. You apparently think that a completely flat Earth morphing into the Earth we see today in 150 days is realistic.Your definition of the word "realistic" must be "whatever Wumpini finds plausable without actually having investigated anything."Congratulations, you are arguing from personal incredulity and ignorance. That's not a very good method of maintaining objectivity or any sort of connection to reality. What would have been different, in what way specifically, and how did you determine this?Saying "it would have been different" is a bare assertion, Wumpini. Your argument involves depositing sediments at elevations far above the highest peak of the water. Your argument involves melting the crust of the Earth with extremely rapid geological activity with no mechanism for suddenly speeding it up or slowing it down and no evidence of its passing.You have nothing, Wumpini. Nothing at all. I know the reason, Wumpini. It's the same reason all the other Creationists argue over the Flood: you don't know what you're talking about, you have a sacred cow to protect, and when given an inch you feel the need to steal a mile.

Irrelevant. Even the miraculous would of necessity leave evidence - for instance, massive catastrophic global volcanism would leave a global layer of igneous rock, among other detectable remnants.Unless you claim that your deity would also specifically erase any and all evidence of the Flood, specifically to fool us later. But that makes your deity a liar, doesn't it?There really aren't any other choices - either detectable evidence of any given event should be present (as opposed to being conflicted by all of the evidence), or your deity specifically utilizes additional miracles to cover up all evidence of the Flood to fool us all.Of course, that also makes your position compeltely unfalsifiable, no longer worthy of consideration beyond basic speculation and childish fantasy. It no longer has any connection to reality. And cue the typical Creationist "I'll pray for you" disengagement from the discussion without conceding any points.It's my hope that you'll eventually learn to think critically, Wumpini, without giving long-cherished beliefs a free pass.

Wumpini, you haven't thought this through very far. You read about a discovery of water under the Earth in addition to the water I spoke of in my calculations, yes, but it's not available water.What on Earth am I talking about, you ask?I gave you every possibly amount of leeway in allowing all of the moisture int he Earth's atmosphere, all of the free subterranean water, and all of the polar ice caps to contribute to a Flood despite the shear impossibility of doing so (you can't rain for 40 days, for instance, and have 0 humidity at the end - there would still be a LOT of water remaining in the atmosphere). I gave you your proverbial inch.And as before, you're trying to take a mile. Do you have any idea what would be required to free up the water dissolved in rock in the Earth's mantle?Clearly you do not.This water is not "available." It is not liquid water that can be pushed up through vents. It is not frozen water that can be melted. It is not water dissolved in the atmosphere that can precipitate.This water is dissolved in rock over 3 kilometers below the lowest point of the ocean, pressurized beyond your imagination and heated to many, many times greater than water's boiling point.You need a mechanism that releases this water from such a state without leaving any trace of the effects of dumping several million cubic kilometers of superheated water into the ocean - no superheating, no explosive decompression. And it has to go through 3 kilometers of the Earth's mantle to get to the surface. And then, it bneeds to go back down through 3 kilometers of the crust back to the mantle for us to find today.This water could in no way be used for a Flood. I tipped the scales drastically your way in my initial calculations, making allowances in your favor at each and every step from the size of a cubit to discounting mountains to assuming a relatively low elevation for all land on Earth to allowing for all of the various "available" forms of water to contribute to a Flood in physics-defying scenarios.And yet you now come across water that would require even more magic physics-defying processes to even contribute to the Flood, let alone do so without steam-cooking Noah in his little boat?I don't think so Wumpini. This is yet another case of apologetics - you are warping and twisting the evidence to fit what you already believe, ignoring the parts of the evidence that do not fit and claiming that the whole thing points to your preconceived conclusion. That method of thinking does not work. We aren't talking about the same sort of water, Wumpini. The thermal vents we see today are not originating in the water trapped in the mantle that you are saying would add to the Flood. The temperature of that water is much hotter, and it would need to flow upwards through the crust at a rate far faster than the vents we see today in order to contribute to the Flood.Ever dumped a cup of boiling water onto an ice cube in a bowl? Go ahead and try it. See what happens. Feel free to measure the temperature afterwards. The water you[ are suggesting would contribute to the Flood is over 7 times hotter than the boiling point of water, and needs to enter the oceans in the millions of cubic kilometers to contribute to the Flood.Also: you don't have 150 days. You have 40. The Bible is very clear: the water rose over 40 days, and persisted for 150.Your scenario fails on every level. You cannot add this water to a Flood, becasue it is trapped at extreme pressure 3 kilometers below the Earth's crust dissolved in rock at over 700 degrees C. You haven't proposed any mechanism that can cause this water to rise up into the oceans or to get it back to where we see it today. You've simply stated "Look, water!" and asserted that this water could contribute. Congratulations on finding evidence of additional water, Wumpini - now you have to show that it is available to contribute to a Flood. You have failed to do so. This is a bare assertion that you have not supported. Immediately provide evidence that supports your assertion that water dissolved in rock over 3 km below the surface at 700 degrees C could rise up to the surface for half a year and tehn resubmerge without leaving any trace of itself, ie without causing explosions as it rises to lower-pressure regions and not superheating the oceans. If you cannot provide such a mechanism, you must immediately retract your assertion. unfortunately your bare assertion is very strongly tied to geology. You have just admitted that you have no idea what you're talking about regarding the dissolved subterranean water you claim could contribute to the Flood. Good job.As for the fossils - well, there's another Pandora's Box for you to tangle with. Here's a hint: the fossil record doesn't resmble anything even remotely close to a global Flood. It does not. The water you are referring to is not available for a Flood. It's not "meltable" water at the ice caps, it's not subterranean liquid water that can rise up to the surface, and it's not water in the atmosphere that can fall to Earth as precipitation. Once again Wumpini, I gave you an inch (a very generous inch) in my initial calculations, and you are trying to take a mile.

Irrelevant. We need to see evidence of a Flood - even a Flood caused by a deity should leave evidence for us to find just a few scant thousand years later (unless the deity specifically covered up this evidence, in which case arguing is moot). The fact is that the water you have mentioned is dissolved in molten rock in the Earth's mantle. It's superheated to several times its boiling point, and it's highly pressurized. To bring that water to the surface, you'd need massive volcanism to transport the magma to the surface, you'd have massive explosions as the superheated water depressurized, and the heat from the water and the magma it's trapped in would parbroil the Earth. Did you happen to notice how much water is dissolved in the magma? Specifically, how much magma contains all of that water? The magma will need to be massively depressurized in order to release its dissolved contents - which means catastrophic volcanism, releasing incredible amounts of heat. Did you also notice what else is dissolved in magma? There's a reason volcanologists don't tend to approach volcanic calderas - extremely toxic gasses are also dissolved in the molten rock. Your scenario would not only superheat the Earth, but also release massive amounts of toxic gasses into the atmosphere. As is typical of Creationist "theories" for the Flood, the water itself would be the least of Noah's problems.We know that the water had to be in the mantle beforehand because, if the water was always all on the surface the world would always have been flooded, and there would be no need for mentioning the "fountains of the deep."We don't see a massive global layer of volcanic rock, and the water is even now still trapped in the mantle - your suggestion requires that it somehow go back into the mantle after the 150 days of the Flood. The evidence of your water having taken part in a global Flood in the past few thousand years is simply not there.You complain that I am discounting your water - but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Melting ice caps, massive rain storms, and even geysers and flow from underground liquid water sources are not extraordinary. Yes, I allowed for extraordinary circumstances in my calculations to completely dry the atmosphere, melt all of the ice caps, and use all of the subterranean liquid water - but this was all an exaggeration of common occurences to sway the calculation as much in favor of the Flood position as possible. Your claim that this other superheated, superpressurized water dissolved in the mantle could have taken part is not a common occurrence. You are making an extraordinary claim: that superheated and superpressurized water dissolved in magma 3 kilometers below the crust (at its highest point, most of it being far lower) somehow rose up to the surface without leaving a gigantic magma layer or parbroiling the planet (or even raising ocean tempreratures significantly) over just 40 days, took part in the Flood for 150 days, and then went back where it came from.This is a hugely extraordinary claim. You have proposed no mechanism for this water to exit the mantle, saying only "I assure you it is not unavailable to God." You may as well say "it's magic!" and stop debating - but as you yourself mentioned, this is a science forum, and "magic" or "goddidit" is not good enough. No. Not at all. No more difference than the existence of water on Europa makes on a proposed global Flood on Earth - the water on Europa, just like the water dissolved in the mantle, could not have taken part. That was a direct response to DwarfishSquints, who claimed the water in space all came from Earth when the Flood waters receded. Very separate argument from the one you and I are participating in - while your scenario causes untold destruction on Earth, his idea was even more fantastical. The water you are proposing could have contributed to the flood breaks all bounds of common sense. There is still not enough water on Earth in any form that could reasonably contribute to a global Flood to accomplish such a feat. The argument stands - particularly since every single step of my initial calculation was purposefully thrown your way. Realistically, to account for the Biblical claim that even the mointains were covered by 15 cubits of water, you'd need far more than 10 times the amount of water in the oceans to match the Biblical claim, since there are many points on Earth more than 10 times the elevation of Indiana (most of the Middle East in fact is 5 times that elevation; the mountains are far, far higher).Again, you've been given an inch and are trying to steal a mile. You've been given the maximum benefit of the doubt, Wumpini - nothing is going to be "fudged" your way any further than it already has been, and that includes allowing water that could not possibly have contributed to a Flood a few thousand years ago enter into our considerations.Further, as you'll notice the topic of the thread, this is about whether the evidence supports a global Flood. I used the insufficient water argument as my opening argument because of my initial discussion with DwarfishSquints in another thread - he simply chose not to participate. There are many, many other arguments against the global Flood - it's one of the most thoroughly disproven claims of the Bible. You have still failed to show that any evidence points to a global Flood.

I dispute that. The additional water that you found, while admittedly sufficient to cover the surface (assuming the estimates in those articles are correct - this is frequently not the case in non-peer-reviewed publications), could not possibly have contributed to a global Flood without leaving significant traces behind.Water does circulate into the mantle. There is a process in geology called subduction - basically, the Earth's crust is continually being recycled into the upper mantle, and new magma surfaces and hardens into new crust. It's all just a giant series of convection cells, and it's what drives continental movement (including the millimeters-per-year growth of Everest). Water "circulating" from the oceans into the mantle and back is almost certainly the result of subduction, where water happens to be carried by the moving rock down into the mantle, and is then eons later carried back up, combined with very slow seepage.The problem is that this is an extremely slow process. I'm not just talking years, or even thousands of years - I'm talking millions or billions of years.In order for water dissolved in the mantle to contribute to the Flood, it would need to suddenly rise through at minimum 3 kilometers of rock (with most of the water being much deeper), and would be under extreme pressure as well as superheated to over 700 degrees Celsius. The only mechanism for carrying the water up through the mantle is subduction and volcanism - basically, the water will need to be carried up through the crust by the very magma it's dissolved in, and then released explosively as steam along with all of the other volcanic gasses.For the amount of water we're talking about, you would need massive amounts of magma to rise to the surface over the course of only 40 days. While this does allow for catastrophic plate tectonics and the sudden shift in continents, reshaping the Earth, it would also have several effects:1) That much magma and water at such temperatures would completely boil the surface of the Earth. This would leave evidence behind, which we simply do not detect.2) Such volcanism would leave a global layer of igneous rock, and all of it should look like magma released under the oceans (since theoretically this magma would be released under the waters of the Flood, at least until the heat boiled away the oceans). We do not see such a global layer of rock.3) You need a mechanism to suddenly speed up subduction and the natural geological processes of the Earth so that millions or billions of years of those processes can be done over the course of at most a year (being generous). Then, you need a mechanism to slow the process back down to what we see today, and seep all of the mantle water back where it came from. No such mechanism has been presented. I realize that we're talking about a story that involves an all-powerful deity, but once again this is a science forum, and we are discussing the scientific evidence that would be left behind by such events.Because we do not detect any of the evidence that would be left by the events required to utilize the water dissolved in the mantle, and in fact detect evidence directly contrary to such a scenario, this scenario is falsified.Consider this a partial concession:There may be enough water inside the Earth to flood the surface, but the evidence available suggests that it would be utterly impossible for this water to contribute to a global Flood. All of your research is, as I said, simply turning up more water that could not reasonable have contributed to a global Flood a few thousand years ago. Quite literally, Wumpini, you may as well look at the water on Europa.When I made my OP, I inteded to make a horrendously biased amateur calculation to show that even under the most favorable of conditions, the water existing as we see it on Earth is insufficient to account for the Flood story.Rather than a discussion of this, what we have seen is instead a discussion over "all I have to do is show there is enough water" without any consideration for whether this water could reasonably contribute to a global Flood a few thousand years ago. It's a case of being unable to see the forest for the trees. The topic of this thread is "Does the evidence support the Flood?" The more-than-implied addition to my claim that there is insufficient water on Earth is that the water must reasonably be able to contribute to such a Flood, or else it is worthless.The discussion has devolved into technicality and equivocation rather than any debate of the evidence. When I or anyone else brings up what would be necessary for such water to contribute to teh Flood, or someone demands evidence in support of the Flood, those posts are ignored, and instead all posts focus exclusively on finding water regardless of whether that water could reasonably have contributed to a Flood. Posters like ICANT whine about discussion of geology when such discussion is absolutely necessary when talking about water dissolved int he mantle.And I'm seriously concerned that poor Nuggin may have an aneurism soon if he can't calm down. My time is limited as well, and if this discussion is going to continue to devolve further into more equivocation and discussion of technicalities rather than evidence for the Flood, then I too am inclined to break off from this aspect of Flood debate and focus on something else. If you (or any other Creationist) could provide evidence in support of a global Flood, we could shift the focus of this debate in that direction instead and still remain on-topic. I know of many, many bits of evidence that contradict the Flood story, but all of that is unnecessary if there is no evidence in support of it.So again - consider this a partial concession. There may well be sufficient water if you completely squeeze this planet dry, including all of the water beneath even the crust, to Flood the surface. However, the vast majority of that water would leave significant evidence if it were to have contributed to a global Flood a few scant thousand years ago, and we do not see any of this evidence. It would, frankly, take a miracle, a special miracle that leaves behind no evidence, and when we go into unfalsifiable positions like that we leave all of the science forums behind - if we involve such miracles, an all-powerful deity could create the necessary water ex nihilo, Flood the Earth, and then magically vanish the extra water when he's done.The water closer to the surface, existing as liquid water in the oceans, underground reservoirs, and lakes, as well as the polar ice caps and all of the water in the atmosphere, that could at least somewhat reasonably have contributed to a global Flood, is insufficient to Flood the Earth. Your introduction of additional water dissolved in the mantle in irrelevant to the actual topic of evidence supporting the Flood story. I would very much like to continue this topic (that of evidence supporting the Flood), but from a different angle - hopefully one less susceptible to the sort of argument we've seen so far. If anyone can propose some evidence in support of a global Flood in the past few thousand years, we can continue this thread from that perspective.Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

Actually, I take extreme offense to the fact that you believe you can rewrite my words to better suit you, becasue you want a "properly worded concession." In one post you graciously note my civil tone, and in the very next you reword my statements becasue you don't think they're good enough?I meant exactly what I said, and I wholeheartedly reject your rewording. That's not honest debate, Wumpini, that's being a jackass. I used the words "partial concession" for a reason, as I am not conceding the point - simplky stating that if your additional water is actually there, it still does nothing for your side of the Flood debate. When I made my OP and claimed that there is insufficient water on Earth to account for a global Flood, I never imagined anyone would introduce such an absurd idea as water dissolved in the mantle. As I've stated before, you may as well say that the water came from a comet or Europa, and then magically left. My assumption was that nobody would ever introduce compeltely impossible ideas as outlandish as yours, becasue they violate all reason and logic.Clearly, assuming that nobody would introduce ideas that are compeltely irrelevant to the actual topic of debate so that they could claim a win on a technicality was incorrect. So let me put it this way: any water that could not reasonably contribute to a global Flood, even granting the maximum reasonable leeway to the Creationist side, is irrelevant to this debate.You may not like that statement, but that's the statement I've made, and you have no right to "change" it. This is not only exceedingly rude on your part, it's utterly ridiculous. Becasue you choose to ignore any and all posts on the subject. Once again, not an honest debate tactic, as "how the water could get there" is of vital relevance to the topic - if the water could not remotely reasonably contribute in a significant factor to a global Flood, it is irrelevant. Ignoring posts that point out to you that your water is irrelevant does not help your side. It's a very strong word for a reason, Wumpini. Just because Astronomy is changing extremely rapidly with new discoveries all the time doesn't mean that it's feasible that the Earth could fall into the Sun tomorrow. When I use the word "impossible" I mean "so unlikely that you'd better produce compeltely unshakeable evidence to support your position, or your assertion is dismissed out of hand because it violates well-known and observed principles." That fits perfectly with any assertion that water dissolved in magma in the Earth's mantle could contribute to a global Flood.Let's put it this way: It's impossible to utilize all of the water in the atmosphere for a Flood, becasue the natural process of evaporation will continually replenish at least some of the water vapor. Suggesting that water dissolved in magma in the Earth's mantle makes that look easy.Your position is that you've possibly uncovered an amount of water sufficient to Flood the Earth, but when told that your water could not possibly have contributed to any event in the past several thousand years on the scale of a global Flood, your response is "I dunno, and scientists keep changing their minds." This is not an argument, Wumpini, it's bare assertion and equivocation.In fact, in light of edge's comment immediately above yours, it would appear you haven't actually found a source of water at all!OH != H2O. It's not even water. It's an entirely different chemical. The whole discussion is moot - if edge is correct and it is OH dissolved in the magma instead of water, your entire suggestion goes from simply absurd to flatly wrong.I'd love to see more from edge, and a response from you to his post. Rewording my statements to suit what you would call a "proper concession" when I never gave any such concession is certainly not acceptable, Wumpini. Of course, neither is ignoring several posts from several individuals regarding the shear impossibility of bringing significant amounts of water from the mantle into a global Flood a few thousand years back.

It's just simple apologetics, that's all it is.1) conclusion
2) search for evidence in support of conclusion
3) if evidence conflicts with the conclusion, ignore it or "reinterpret it
4) find a choir to preach toThe conclusion (the Flood happened) is already known. Any challenge to the Flood as a historical fact is either ignored or discounted as a "misinterpretation of evidence."Contrast this with the scientific method:1) observations
2) formulate hypothesis to explain the observations
3) test the predictions of the hypothesis with evidence
4) refine or discard the hypothesis depending on the results
5) submit conclusions for peer review, and prepare to be ripped apart if your methodology is flawedAll "Creation science" follows the pattern of apologetics. Always, the conclusion comes first, and the evidence supporting the conclusion comes second, with additional evidence to the contrary being ignored or discounted.The part where people get confused is that the apologetics method looks very similar to steps 2-3 of the scientific method - that is, it appears that scientists are forming a conclusion and then searching for evidence in favor of that conclusion. The part apologists miss is that the hypothesis is in no way a conclusion, and the evidence is meant to falsify the hypothesis rather than support it. Only through failure to falsify a hypothesis will it gain acceptance, and when a hypothesis is falsified it is changed or discarded - which apologists never do.The thought process for the religious apologist is simply the antithesis of the scientific method. Apologists think they have all the answers, and are simply looking for the right questions. Scientists begin with questions, and tentatively accept answers based on evidence. Apologists never alter their initial conclusion, and scientists always alter the hypothesis when presented with new data.With regard to this particular argument, the apologist/scientist disparity can be plainly seen.I began with a hypothesis: if there was a global Flood in the Earth's recent past, we should see evidence in favor of such an event. One peice of evidence would be sufficient water to Flood the Earth per the description in the Bible.I then calculated an extremely generous estimate of the amount of water on Earth that could "reasonably" have contributed to a global Flood, establishing an upper limit for the amount of water available. I then calculated a lower limit for the necessary water to Flood the Earth (a lower limit than is even reasonable, considering I used an arbitrarily low elevation for the average height of continents and discounted any mountains).The overwhelming disparity between the amount of water that could reasonably contribute to the Flood and the amount of water actually necessary falsified the hypothesis that there should be enough water on Earth to account for the Flood.The apologists began with the conclusion: The Flood happened, so of course there is enough water on Earth.They then searched for any and all water not mentioned in my estimates, arriving upon water dissolved in magma in the Earth's mantle (and of course even this looks wrong, as edge points out that it's not water at all, but rather OH, a different chemical compund from H2O). Challenges to how this water could reasonably contribute to a global Flood were ignored or discounted. Demands for a mechanism to allow this water to participate in the Flood were ignored. The lack of evidence that would certainly be left behind by the geological processes required to involve such water from the mantle were ignored.The "evidence" (anything relevant) was "interpreted" (misstated, misunderstood and quotemined) to fit the already-determined conclusion: there must be enough water on Earth to account for the Flood because the Flood happened.Apologetics is not a valid methodology for reliably determining the processes of reality. When you begin with a conclusion and manipulate evidence to fit, you are introducing massive bias and invalidating your entire perspective. The only method for maintaining a view of the natural world that connects with reality is to begin with evidence and observation, and form whatever conclusion they lead you to, minimizing bias as much as possible through objective analysis and peer review.

You'll note that I simply said that if edge is correct, your argument becomes moot. I also asked for additional information from him, as well as a response from you.Your final sentence is almost verbatim "I'm taking my ball and going home."If you cannot respond to reasonable criticism, or even respond maturely to incorrect assertions, why are you here on a debate forum?I also note that once again you have posted, insisted that your water could contribute to a Flood, and ignored all of the many posts that tell you that whether it's water or OH or ooblech it could not reasonably contribute to a Flood without catastrophic geological consequences, and we see none of the evidence of those consequences in modern geology.Ignoring evidence and leaving rebuttals unanswered is not debate. Rewording people's posts so that they are more "acceptable" to you is also not debate. You aren't preaching to the choir here, Wumpini. If you find it difficult or impossible to remain objective or respond to criticism, feel free to leave the science forums, as ridiculous scenarios and apologetics do not fare well here.

Moose, we both know that despite many (most?) areas of the continents having been under water at one point or another, they were not submerged at the same time.You apparently misunderstood - I did not say 15 cubits above current sea level. If you look back at my OP, I said, specifically, the continents (perhaps "shelves" was a geologically inaccurate term causing confusion, for which I apologize). In my rough estimate, I used 200 meters above current sea level, the average elevation of Indiana (an arbitrarily low elevation compared to many areas) as a lower limit for the average elevation of the continents.15 cubits above current sea level is definitely possible - but it wouldn't cause anything remotely like a global Flood. Coastal regions would be devastated, certainly, but most inland areas would be largely unaffected. It certainly would bear no resemblance to the Flood story in the Bible, which is what we are discussing. This is a map of the continents in the late Cretaceous period. Yes, many areas that are currently dry land were submerged. But the entire landmass was not covered, and that's what we're discussing here with relation to a global Flood.Obviously there was not sufficient water to cover all of the continents, else they would have all been covered.And of course as you yourself mention, this was 65-145 million years ago. The Flood is supposed to have happened only in the last several thousand years - geologically yesterday. Squeezing 65 million years of tectonic plate movements into a few thousand years is completely untenable, contradicts radiometric dating, dating estimates from geological layers, and would require massive amounts of energy, the evidence of which we simply do not see (I'm sure you aren't actually suggesting catastrophic plate tectonics, but that's where we wind up if you suggest that the continents may have looked remotely like their Cretaceous counterparts during the time period of the Flood).I'm sure my usage of the term "continental shelves" is what's causing confusion here, and so again I apologize for my misused term. As you can see from context, I was referring to a lower limit for the average elevation of the land itself excluding mountains, and not what is technically referred to as the continental shelf.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed image to thumbnail to restore page width to normal.

Which is why I offered a partial concession to Wumpini (his inappropriate "rewording" aside). The OH dissolved in the mantle (from my understanding - you're the geologist, so feel free to correct me) is a "form" of stored water, despite the fact that it's technically a different compound. When heated to extreme temperatures (significantly higher than the 700 Celsius the magma is already at), the OH could form back into water.The "including water trapped in rock" portion of my claim is refuted - and yet since it would be impossible (without direct miraculous intervention) for this OH to have contributed significantly to a global Flood event a few scant thousand years ago given the geological evidence we see and the chemical reaction necessary to "un-store" the OH and make it water again, it still doesn't approach making a case for there being sufficient water to Flood the Earth. One might as well look at the water on Europa for all the relevance this water has for a global Flood event.

I'm aware of that.It's also impossible for the entire volume of ice in the polar caps to be used in a global Flood, as this requires massive global climate change, disregards the fact that ice has a lower density than water and so will account for less volume when melted, and disregards the fact that most ice is actually in the water already and will not contribute significantly to raising sea level.And it's impossible to use the entire volume of groundwater on the surface without any mechanism for pumping the water up, and this mechanism must function on a global scale in wildly varied environments and stop completely when the Flood is over.My calculations were intentionally flawed to give the absolute maximum bias in the Creationists' favor. The entire point was that, if the Flood would not be possible even under the most physics-defying favorable conditions imaginable, certainly the Flood would be completely unsupported by the evidence in a real-world situation.

Nuggin is not wrong. You may have noticed that he mentioned the northern polar ice cap, which is primarily in the water already.Yes, Antarctica's ice is mainly on land and would contribute greatly to raising sea level. However, this conversation began with pointing out that not all of the polar ice could possibly contribute to a global Flood. The ice alreay in the water would not significantly contribute, and the volume calculation is off because I used the volume of the ice while the volume of water from melted ice would be lower due to differing densities.Yes, melting the polar ice caps will significantly contribute to rising sea levels. No, not all of the ice would significantly contribute. In my initial estimate I allowed all of the ice to contribute as a "fudge factor" in favor of the Creationist side - one of many. My intent was to generate an estimate that favored the Creationist side as much as reasonably possible and then some, and show that there is still insufficient water to Flood the entire Earth in such an overtly biased estimate. According to your own source, this process of continents rising due to suddenly-removed pressure from glaciers is far too slow to account for significant changes in the ~6000 years since the supposed Flood was to have occurred. And while you nonchalantly claim the Flood happened, we have not seen any evidence presented in this or any other thread in support of a global Flood.