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

Hi Rahvin,You know I am not a scientist so I try to stay away from these science forums, but I had a few questions about your post. I do know a little about math. You know in Arkansas they taught us reedin, ritin, and rithmatic. I would like to find out where you get some of your figures for your calculations. You know the old adage GIGO. You seem to have made a significant calculation here, and I see no support for any of your numbers. Are these numbers from some scientific source, or from a website? Could you give me a source for this number? Are you talking about bringing the water level up to the average elevation of Indiana before or after the sediment would have been left from a global flood? Or, are you assuming that the elevation of Indiana would be the same after the flood as before? At 210 meters, could the state have been underwater before a global flood? Could you give me a source for this number? You say the amount WE calculated. Was someone else involved in these calculations besides you? I thought scientists were not supposed to use words like impossible. Wouldn't it be better to say highly unlikely? I know this is a science forum so miracles are probably off limits. But this is a Biblical scenario, and if God was involved that kind of changes the whole picture doesn't it? I am only playing catch up on this geological stuff, but I did not think that all or most mountains were sedimentary formations. Could you explain to me how a flood depositing sediments has anything to do with "some movement" of geological features creating a mountain?I imagine DS is talking about some sort of uplift due to geological activity.As for the water covering the tops of the mountains, there are fossils of sea critters on the tops of the mountains in Colorado. I have personally seen them.To sum up this post. I do not see where you get your numbers. If you pulled them from another web site, then give me the link. If you have some scientific source that has made these calculations, then give me the support.I was thinking of something, and I thought I would run it by you. It is only an idea, and you guys usually don't like my ideas, but I will try anyway.I was looking at this Chemistry book titled "The Quest for Insight." I think its a good title. Well I was looking at this book, and studying about water. The book says that a lot of the water on earth came from outer space. I thought that was interesting. The book also says that the emissions from volcanos contains a lot of water. I assume that would turn the water into water vapor, and it would come down as rain.Also, I noted that water is made up of Hydrogen and Oxygen. It said Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. It accounts for 89% of all atoms. If we look at all the fossil fuels on this earth then it appears at one time there was a lot of plants living that were producing Oxygen. Now isn't it possible that this Hydrogen and Oxygen got together and made water somehow. H2O.
I was just wondering.Regardless, it seems that you need to support your numbers. You also need to take into account in your calculations the geological impact of a worldwide flood, and the sedimentary impact of that same flood. If Indiana was 200 meters above sea level after the flood, it could have quite possibly been below sea level before the flood. I can almost assure you from the limited floods that I have seen, that Indiana was not 200 meters above sea level before a world wide flood.I have been in those mountains in Colorado that you talk about and seen fossils of sea critters on the tops of those mountains. I have also been to Dinosaur National Park out in Western Colorado, and they have those dinosaurs stacked one on top of another. It looked like something buried them pretty fast.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

It appears from your comments that the numbers and assumptions used for your calculation were not very substantial. And, at the end you reach this conclusion. This may be a fact. However, nothing in your posts or calculations has shown this to be a fact. No offense intended.Does anyone else argue this point? I looked at the talkorigins website and they have pages of what they proclaim to be problems with the flood, but I cannot find any argument about the quantity of water that would be required to cover the earth at that time.I am presently attempting to read a book on biology and learn more about this thing called life. As a result, I do not have time right now to help you find good numbers (I don't even know where to look), or to develop good assumptions (I would have to do a lot of thinking to figure these out) so that you can make a somewhat accurate calculation to prove what you appear to be trying to prove. This being that there is not enough water available to cover the earth as it would have existed before a global flood. At least I think that is what you are trying to prove.I would definitely be interested in seeing and evaluating your results if you can make an accurate calculation.It would be much eaiser for me to evaluate if you state exactly what you are trying to prove, state clearly your assumptions, and show the authoritative source of each of your numbers. Regardless, I would be interested in learning more about how Hydrogen bonds to Oxygen through this covalent bond. You say that water cannot escape from the atmosphere, however it appears that Hydrogen will escape. There does not seem to be much free Hydrogen on the earth (that is not trapped or bonded with water). This may even have some potential effect upon your calculations.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

It is hard to tell at this point in my study. You seem to be convinced that a global flood 6000 years ago was not able to leave the geological evidence that you see on Everest. I think we both agree that those mountains were under water at one time.I guess I will have to wait and see where the evidence eventually leads me.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

DeletedEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Totally off-topic message "whited out". Signature shut off.Edited by Wumpini, : Deleted Off Topic Message

First, you say that I am a child if I do not provide evidence to refute your calculation. Then over and over again in the same post you tell me the calculation is not completely accurate or real. Why would I need to refute a calculation that even you do not see as accurate or real? I really don't have time to participate in this debate right now. Nothing personal, but I am studying other areas at the present time.However, I have not made any bare assertions. You made the assertions yourself. I only pointed them out.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

It has become obvious to me from the comments of others that I may not have given your computation the justice that it deserved. I truly thought that it would be obvious to you, and to others, that the calculation was biased, and based upon invalid assumptions.Since this was obviously not the case, I will attempt to point out to you what I thought was readily apparent. If you see that I am misunderstanding your position, your conclusion, or your assumptions then I know that you will point that out. However, please do not hold me to a higher standard of accuracy then you are holding yourself to.In addition, please understand that I was serious about not getting into a long drawn out debate about a global flood. Maybe the time will come when I will have that desire. Right now I am attempting to devote my time to other areas. Therefore, I would like to limit our discussion to the question of whether there was enough water for a global flood to have taken place, and the calculations that you made to attempt to prove your point. If you want to argue other points that refute the possibility of a global flood, then please let me bow out, and you do that with someone else.First, let us look at your perceived conclusion. Now let us look at some of your assumptions: I have no problem with these assumptions. I disagree with this assumption. I have no idea what the earth would have been like before a global flood that lasted as long as the Biblical account but I am sure that it would be much different then the earth we see today. It would not surprise me if all of Indiana was under water before a global flood. As a matter of fact, it would surprise me greatly if the earth after a global flood that lasted for such a significant period of time resembled the earth before the flood at all. It seems from what I have read that there would have been a lot of geological action including volcanic and seismic activity associated with the flood that would have resulted in the formation of mountains, and other catastrophic changes. I would also assume that there would have been significant sediments deposited throughout the world as an aftermath of a flood of this magnitude. It would seem probable that a global flood would have a significant impact upon the floor of the ocean, and upon the land mass of the entire world. I do not see where your calculations take into account any of these factors.I did a quick calculation myself of the amount of water that is available on the earth today as it relates to the surface area of the earth. If we wanted to give the “creos” as you guys call them the greatest benefit from the calculation then we could assume that the surface of the earth was completely flat (I know it is unrealistic and not exact, but your figures weren’t either. So let us assume that the earth was like a basketball.) This is only for comparison purposes.Based upon this we would have:Surface area of the earth including land and water (I’ll use your number): 510,065,000 km^2Total water available on the earth today (I’ll use your USGS website): 1,386,000,000 km^3Therefore, it the earth was totally flat then this water would cover the entire earth by:1,386,000,000 km^3 / 510,065,000 km^2 = 2.72 km (2,720 meters)For those who don’t use the metric system that would be about 1.69 miles if I am not mistaken, or 8,923 feet. That is a lot of water.Now I assure you that the earth was not completely flat, but it was also not as it is today. So, it must have been somewhere in between. Therefore, I will tell you what we can do, we will split the difference. That seems fair enough. We will put one half below sea level and the other half above sea level. That would put the water 1,360 meters above sea level.The highest mountain in the state of Arkansas where I came from is 839 meters. That would put the water 521 meters above this mountain top. However, as I said before, “creos” would attribute a lot of the uplift and sedimentary deposits to the catastrophic event of the flood. Therefore, this mountain probably would not have existed before the flood. I would think that "creos" would attribute the uplifting of all of the tallest peaks to the catastrophic changes resulting from the flood.Since you have given me nothing to base your geological assumptions upon, I would think my assumptions are as good as yours or better.Let us look at some more of your assumptions. Once again you are using current numbers to guess what the conditions would have been like thousands of years ago before a global flood. There could have been significantly more water in the atmosphere at that time. I know that some even argue about the existence of a water canopy. I know that others argue that it would have to be limited because of the heat it would generate when it collapsed. Regardless, we don't know what this number would be? Even if you are correct, it changes nothing. I would assume that this number is not even close to correct. Think of all that water that is pumped out of the ground for industry and irrigation today. That does not even take into account what we pump out for personal use. The amount of water trapped underground is steadily decreasing. We see it all over the world as wells go dry. In my opinion, this number would have been significantly higher before the flood. Once again, your conclusion is wrong because your assumptions are invalid. There is and was enough water to flood the earth. It is only a matter of how you look at it. As discussed earlier, the geological activity during the flood would have been significant. There would have been volcanic activity, geological uplifts, shifting of the ocean floor, and significant sedimentary deposits. It would have changed the face of the earth.I was at Mt. St. Helens a few years ago. You should see how that one little event changed that entire area. Trees were knocked down, the lake rose significantly, and the entire area looked like a nuclear warhead or something had hit it. What if that had been happening all over the world? There are many other theories that could be suggested to explain the possibility of a global flood. You cannot explain them all away in one paragraph. However, I do not plan to deal with any of those theories. My response is intended to answer one question. Could there have been enough water on the earth thousands of years ago when it is suggested by “creos” that the world was flooded to accomplish that task? I think the answer to that question is yes.You say about your calculation: I really don’t think your calculation was that friendly to the Creationist side. My calculation was much more friendly and realistic in my opinion.It was obvious to me and I thought to others that your calculations were based upon invalid assumptions. You were trying to calculate the amount of water that would have been needed to flood the world, before the flood took place, by using numbers and assumptions as if no flood had taken place. That really does not make sense to me. Everything would have been different before a flood of that magnitude. Therefore, your calculation should have taken into account those projected differences.I hope this helps to clear up the reason that I questioned your calculation.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I think a better analogy would be something like this.Joe: Noah could never get from New York to Los Angeles in less than four weeks.Bill: That's impossible! I can drive the distance myself in less than two days. Even if I took the backroads, stopped at every gas station, and took a nap every time I got tired, I could still make it in a week easy. There is no way that Noah could not make it in that amount of time.This is what I saw Rahvin doing. Obviously, Noah would not have a car, or good roads, or anything comparable to what we have today. Why would we assume that the pre flood conditions were the same as they are today?Yes, Rahvin used favorable numbers, but the numbers were not pre flood numbers. They were current numbers. They did not take into consideration the changes that would have taken place as a result of a global flood. I am not sure what those changes would be, but I think they would be significant, and they should be considered in the calculation.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

You are correct. It would be very difficult for me to view the past from a completely naturalistic point of view.It is my hope that you will all find the truth.Bye for now.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Hello Rahvin,At the end of your last post was this comment: I was surfing the web the other day and came across some scientific research that you may want to include in your calculations.You calculated that we were 21,000,000 km^3 short of water on the earth for a global flood to have occurred as described in the Bible. You said you made these calculations with a bias in favor of creationists. Here are some of your calculations: I think we may have found some of your missing water.Here is a quote and link from Live Science regarding water found in the mantle of the earth.

quote:

---

Scientists scanning the deep interior of Earth have found evidence of a vast water reservoir beneath eastern Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean

---

Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth | Live ScienceHere is another quote regarding the discovery of a massive amount of water deep down under the earth's surface.

quote:

---

Based on what they witnessed in their lab, the researchers concluded that more water probably exists deep within the Earth than is present on Earth's surface”as much as five times more.

---

quote:

---

Other research has suggested that a zone between the mantle and the crust also contain a great deal of water, the Japanese researchers noted. If so, there could be more than ten times the amount of water inside the planet as there is on its surface.

---

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...7_0307_waterworld.htmlJust a moment...Based upon these studies we may need to review your calculations.There is approximately 1,338,000,000 km^3 water in all the oceans according to the USGS.If there is five times as much water under the earth as on the surface, as these scientific investigations indicate, then that would give us an additional 6,690,000,000 km^3 of water available using only the water in the oceans for our calculation. The research indicates there could be as much as ten times the amount of water in the mantle as on the surface of the planet. That could potentially double this number.The total area of the earth is 510,065,000 km^2.If we flooded the earth with this additional 6,690,000,000 km^3 of water we would get this calculation.6,690,000,000 km^3 / 510,065,000 km^2 = 13.12 km deep.If all of this water was used to flood the earth then it would add a total depth of 13.12 km, or 13,120 meters which is more than sufficient to submerge Mt. Everest at its present height of 8,850 meters.In Genesis 7:11, the Bible states that one of the sources of the flood water were the "fountains of the great deep."

quote:

---

... on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened

---

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Actually, I did read the articles. Did you?Obviously this is pretty new science since they are changing their understanding of the evolution of the earth. Here is one quote:

quote:

---

Already the types of rocks recovered show that conventional interpretation of Earth’s evolution are “oversimplifying many of the features of the ocean’s crust” said expedition leader Jay Miller of Texas A&M University. Each time we drill a hole, we learn that earth’s structure is more complex. Our understanding of how the Earth evolved is changing accordingly.

---

If you read through the articles, you would see that the only chemical reaction that is necessary to free up this water would be evaporation. Here is another quote from the researchers:

quote:

---

Although they appear solid, the composition of some ocean floor rocks is up to 15 per cent water. “The water molecules are actually stuck in the mineral structure of the rock,” Wysession explained. “As you heat this up it eventually dehydrates. It is like taking clay and firing it to get all of the water out.”

---

Science has now determined that there is a lot of water in the ocean floor, and below the crust of the earth. They estimate this water to be significantly more than what exists on the surface. One estimate is that there is ten times more water under the surface than the total volume of water on the surface of the planet. The crust is only a few miles thick under the oceans, and it is very brittle and fragmented. The heat in the earth has the ability to separate this water from the rocks where it is imbedded. The only chemical reaction required is evaporation. The water could then be cooled by the oceans after being liberated from the rocks.There is enough water on the earth today to easily account for the amount that was necessary for a world wide flood. The water is being liberated from the rock on a continual basis through the process of evaporation as we speak. As the Bible says, “all the fountains of the great deep were opened up.” I think it is interesting that the Bible has something to say about this significant reservoir of water under the oceans thousands of years before scientists ever found it. I hope that the day comes that science catches up with the Bible in other areas too.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

If you think these scientists are making up stories then you need to tell them, not me. What makes you think the scientists who have made these recent discoveries are creationists? I did not see anything in the articles that I read that give any indication that they were biased in any way regarding their scientific work.It is obvious that many people are biased in the scientific world. This becomes even more evident when you look at all the fraud that has taken place as scientists attempt to promote different theories. If you disagree with the findings of these scientists then give the reason for your disagreement. Do not attack the scientists by saying they are making up stories.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I agree with you that we should try to figure out what this means.I was looking on the internet about the temperature of the oceans. Although the temperature is pretty warm at the surface in some places, the average temperature of all of the oceans is about 4 degrees C or less depending upon who you ask. I looked at some graphs, and it seems that once you get down about 500 meters or so, it gets very, very cold. Here is one quote with a link:

quote:

---

The average temperature of the ocean is 3.9 C

---

Temperature of the Ocean - The Physics Factbook I also did some research about that water coming out of the ocean floor. Luckily they have found a lot of vents on the floor of the ocean where the temperature of this water has been measured. The highest temperature ever recorded was 403 degrees C according to one source that I found. There are actually a number of low temperature vents where the water is coming out pretty close to freezing. Here are some quotes and links that relate to some of these measurements:

quote:

---

The water emerges from a hydrothermal vent at temperatures ranging up to 400C, compared to a typical 2C for the surrounding deep ocean water.

---

Hydrothermal vent - Wikipedia

quote:

---

As the vent water bursts out into the ocean, its temperature may be as high as 400C (750F).

---

http://www.ocean.udel.edu/deepsea/level-2/geology/vents.html

quote:

---

The OSU scientist said there also is a vast low-temperature field in the region that supports a diverse community of life, including large sea-lilies that "sit atop mineral/bacterial chimney-like structures that look at the world like pineapples."

---

quote:

---

"That is a particularly strange form of vent," Schultz said, "because the fluids coming out of these vents come out at temperatures only a fraction of a degree above the temperature of the background seawater and that is very cold - below zero Celsius - which is only possible in the Arctic.

---

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2005/08/050819123850.htm

quote:

---

Two prominent vent fields at the summit were named Pele's vents and Kapo's vents (after the Hawaiian volcano goddess, said by legend to reside at nearby Kilauea volcano, and her sister). These vents were considered as "low temperature vents" by the scientific community as their waters were only 30C or so.

---

quote:

---

Additionally, in Sept. 1996, high temperature vents were observed on the floor of Pele's Pit but temperature readings were not made and, unfortunately, it was deemed too unsafe for the October Expedition participants to visit go to Forbidden Vents at this time (so temperature readings were not made). In Sept. 1997, the Forbidden Vents were examined and submersible divers measured exit temperatures of over 200C.

---

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/loihivents.html

quote:

---

extreme temperatures - highest measured vent temperature is 403C

---

http://www.botos.com/marine/vents01.html I am trying to follow you. So, now we have a 4 degree C ocean with water pouring into it at a maximum of 400 degrees C. It would be less on average but we will go with that figure for now. As I was thinking about these calculations, I thought there were a few other items we should take into consideration. We need to understand that all of this water is not going to come out at once. We have 150 days for the waters to reach their highest point. Therefore, only a little over one-half of one percent of the total water will need to enter into the ocean on a daily basis. Therefore using your formula (which I have no idea whether it is correct or not. I will take your word for it.), we can calculate the temperature increase on the first day of the flood..5cal/deg/gram (steam) / 1cal/deg/gram (water)Therefore we take [(400*.5*.0066) + (4*1)] / 1.0066 = 5.28 degrees C.Therefore we have about a 1.28 degree C increase in the temperature of the ocean on day one of the flood with the assumptions that have been made. Obviously this could be much less depending upon the temperature of the water that is coming up. It has been shown that the water coming out of some of the vents at the poles is very cold, even colder than the average temperature of the ocean.Then, I began thinking about soup. You know it seems like every time I cook some soup, I will set it down, and then something will pull me away for a little while, and when I come back it is cold. The soup is cold even though the temperature here at the equator is very hot. If I have my ceiling fan going it doesn’t take very much time for this to happen. Where does that heated soup go? The same place that heated ocean water is going to go. Into the atmosphere, and then it will come back down in rainfall. There is not going to be any boiling oceans in this scenario. When the heated water gets to the surface it is going to be cooled very quickly by the temperature of the atmosphere. The heated water will also increase the amount of evaporation. The net effect on the total ocean temperature on a daily basis will be negligible. There would be no boiling oceans. I am convinced that the water for the flood has been found under the crust of this planet. It was possible for this water to flood the entire surface. I have not had the time to examine the other evidence. I do not know about all the geology, and the fossils, and whatever else you guys debate about related to the flood. I hope to have the time in the future to look into those areas. As for now, this analysis rebukes the statement that was made at the beginning of this thread that there is not enough water on this planet to flood the earth.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I have been ON the mountains, and I have been IN the mountains. True. When I went IN the mountains I saw something different. I saw all kinds of dinosaur bones, and many other fossils piled up on top of each other with debris mixed in. It seemed as if it was all buried very quickly by something.Maybe you should go IN the mountains in Colorado sometime and check it out. I have lived there a couple of times in my life.Edited by Wumpini, : No reason given.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Hi Rahvin, I find ten times more water than you think is on the earth, and now you turn around and say you don't like my water. You say it is "not available." Well I know this is a science forum, but I assure you that all the water on this planet is available to God. Its His water.You must admit that from a scientific standpoint, the fact that the water is here on earth does make a difference.Remember when you said: You see the water does not need to be ejected into space. It was here the entire time. The water needed to Flood this earth was here 5000 years ago, and it is here today. Actually, to refute your original argument, I do not need to do that. Do you remember your original argument? I have proven there is enough water on the planet to Flood the earth. If I can find the time, I will try to give you some additional scientific information to appease your inquiring scientific mind.Bye for now

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I looked on the internet to see how the dinosaur bones were piled up in this one place I have visited. It must not have been the Big Flood, because they say flooding events (unless of course they are biased).

quote:

---

The dinosaurs and other ancient animals were washed into the area and buried presumably during flooding events.

---

Here is a link:Dinosaur National Monument - WikipediaI would think these big guys were buried very quickly during these flooding events. It is a pretty amazing sight.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce