Polar ice caps and possible rise in sea level

Wow, I feel famous now.Ok, here is my creationalist, non-scientifical take on it. Please correct me if I'm wrong (do I need to say that?)I see everyone talking about flood, flood flood. But what does flood mean? But before we get into that, lets look at the KJV of what God said he was going to do. Flood waters.Now getting back the definition of flood. A flood as described in the bible?

​

I don't know about the rest of you but when my bsement gets 1" of water in it, its flooded.

​

The bible does say this also:

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month-on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

​

So the springs did have something to do with it.

​

So here's my theory, There arre many things that could happen, that would cause the rains to come. Where would they come from? The oceans. So if the oceans where heated up by any number of means, or natural causes, that would start evaporating very quickly. Causes massive rains to fall. If rain fell at the rate of 4" per hour over land, can you imagine the flooding that would occur?

​

We just got hit with the remenants of IVAN, and we got about 5" of rain. The mountain I live on, which is about a 35 dgree angle, reached critical mass of the water it can hold. The water is now shooting up out of the ground, and it looks like a spring just about every where you can find a crack. It is almost as if the mountain is a giant sponge and God is putting his hand on it to squeeze it out.

​

I do not think there should be any arguement that if we had a rainfall rate of 2-4" an hour, that eventually everything on earth would be covered with water, no matter how small it may be. The mountains would still be sticking up, but they would look like water falls, and all but the very peaks would have significant water on them. The peaks themselves would have maybe 1/4" of water on them, but they would be covered in water.

​

I wish someone could make a computer model of the Himilayas, and then apply the rainfall rate of 4" per hour, for forty days, and observe how it would back up, just like your favorite stream.

​

You see the water can only drain back so fast to the ocean, so it would back up and appear to be covered in water, without it actually being the same as sea level.

​

Forget about looking for marine life high up in alltitude, you won't find it, there isn't enough water for the seas to rise like that.

​

However the bible has this:

19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

​

I might have a problem with this statement, and it might be an exagreration of the author of the book. How would he know it was 20 feet, unless Noah sailed his boat exactly over the highest mountain, and measured the depth of the water, or God told him?

​

But still I would love to see some computer models of the rain I am talking about, and just how high, and far would the water back up. Maybe the 20 feet is possible.

​

This would also explain why fresh water species didn't get wiped out from salt water exposure in the flood. Only low lying areas, would have seen salt, places like the Bonneville salt flats, or death valley.

​

If it rains on mt everest, how long does it take for the water to reach the sea?

​

Let me know if I am clear in my explaination, I don't always express myself the best, I also hate typing, and its late, GN all.

Um, I think you missed my whole point.I am saying that the water from the poles is not enough, I know that. but if flooded in the way I described, everything would be washed away into the oceans, except the fresh water fish, and die.You never seen floods before? Does the level of the ocean have to rise in order for things to die?

I cannot give a qualified answer to that. I can answer it with a question though.Was every river and stream here before the flood? Because after the flood God gave us a covenant of the rainbow. To me that is an indicator that it didn't really rain before the flood, otherwise there would have been rainbows.I wonder about these things too, but it doesn't stop me from believing.

Can anyone provide evidence to refute my theory?

I believe I did, maybe you didn't really read it. Or maybe its your attitude towards a theory ever working. ITs already well known what happens to ground water on a mountain after just one day and 4-5' of rain. The ground water fills up and has no where to go, but back out the mountain, there-by turning the whole mountain into a water fall, or running stream. If enough water where to rain out of the sky, then I can't imagine what it would look like, but I can bet you, I wouldn't be able to survive it. Yes I do Mr. wizard. That would be evidence against my theory, possibly. We don't really know how those things got deposited there. Birds could have ate them, and crapped them out far away from the source where they ate it. Who knows? If your saying that sea shells on a mountain is evidence that the flood didn't happen the way I am theorizing it, then it must have happened a different way, but it did indeed happen then. Unless you can come up with another explainantion for the sea shells. They are extremely reasonable. Insulting me does not help your case. It also does not make my theory wrong, because you fail to understand what I described. I also did say I would try to describe it another way if you have trouble understanding what I am saying.
I know a lot more than you could ever imagine. I have a common sense understanding of science and physics way beyond any jerk scientist that went to 8 years of college, just because I can look around at things at see whats going on. Its the same common sense that makes one race car driver better than another, because he can fully understand all the dynamics involved with going around a race track, without going to college to learn it. Put a pyhsisit with 8 years of college in the same car, and he just might never get it. No matter how much he thinks he understands.So when you disrespect people, it shows your level of intelligence.I gave a theory so that someone who might know the actual numbers involved and could calculate it, might look at it and say "let me see if it would work" I don't have the time to go and find all the numbers. But not having gone to college, I could easily figure it out.My theory holds water *edited to add something*
Another possible cause of the seashell deposits are tornados, or water spouts. They can pick up debri and send it miles away through our atmosphere.This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 09-19-2004 07:58 PM

Here is a web-site that explains what I am talkiong about on a much smaller scale.
http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/...urces1/maidment/gishyd.htmlIf we could use this model and increase the rainfall amounts to biblical proportions, I wonder how high the water would actually get.

I am sorry, but that statement by me or you doesn't make either one of us smarter than the other.
Don't take offence please.

Wouldn't it then be very easy to prove that part of the earths crust was indeed under water at some point, other than just seashell fossils?

Used to rain cows in England from tornados.

I didn't call you one, if you fell that way though, sorry.
I was insulted first. Go tell him not to insult me.*edit*
I would like to know why Ireland is not consistant with a flood. I am not aware of this, and wnat to learn.This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 09-20-2004 07:47 AM

Thats an easy one, but your description is missing some things.At what point on the wheel is the block? The top or bottom?
If it is suspended from the bottom, the axis of the wheel has nothing to do with it, and we can apply: —32 feet per square second or —9.8 meters per square second. Because terminal velocity would have little affect on a distance that short.But since you mention rotation of the wheel, I am guessing top of the wheel?

Thats awesome, thanks.

Yes, I can figure that out, with out having gone to college.
He said the block gets released from the rest. I wasn't sure the type of problem he was presenting to me.So being a smart person, I want to clarify the problem before I tackle it.

Anyone who doesn't ask, is a jerk.You said released from everything. I thought that might have meant released from the cord also. So I would have had to figure out the forces involved in rotating the circle 1/4 turn, plus falling to the ground.But I see what it is your showing me now. The weight is completely in the air, and doesn't have to move laterally at all, right?I would also like to do something with this. Being that I have not been taught the formulas, and maybe you have. you would be able to know exactly how to calculate such a problem.I will without looking up any formulas, try to figure this out on my own, if we drop the 20 minute part. So I will need to calculate the trade off in energy between the wieght falling, and getting the wheel in motion.So the speed will be =(the effect of gravity on the wieght)-(energy absorbed by the rotating mass of the wheel)This is correct?
This all happens in a vacum right?

Of course in matters.However small the effect. Air=resistance. It can be calculated.