Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9031 total)
79 online now:
(79 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Post Volume: Total: 884,899 Year: 2,545/14,102 Month: 210/703 Week: 31/158 Day: 31/10 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1985
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 378 of 432 (879807)
07-22-2020 4:57 PM


OFF TOPIC WARNING
Numerous posts are drifting off-topic. This is a science forum and the methodology will be respected.

Any subsequent off topic rants regarding science as religion, or religion being scientific, without reasoned evidence and argumentation supporting them and being on topic will elicit one day suspensions. We simply must nip this lack of discipline in the bud.


  • Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
  • Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation.
  • The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

  •   
    AdminPhat
    Administrator
    Posts: 1985
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-03-2004


    Message 379 of 432 (879808)
    07-22-2020 5:07 PM
    Reply to: Message 377 by dad
    07-22-2020 4:08 PM


    TOPIC SYNOPSIS REFOCUSED
    Topic Starter writes:

    In the thread "Evidence for a recent flood", claims have been made as to the sources of the water of the flood, the "fountains of the deep" amongst other sources.
    Arguments have been made that the flood was not catastrophic or violent, that water flows uphill, that the opening of the fountains of the deep doesn't mean water reaching high in the atmosphere, that water wasn't in the mantle pre-flood, but got there afterwards when the "single land mass" divided in the days of Peleg.

    So many different arguments have been made, some inconsistent with others, that it's difficult to visualise the floodist's model and the various statements are scattered over numerous posts and threads.

    In the distant past we've discussed this topic, touching on Walt Brown's hydroplate theory and vapour canopies etc, but it would be worthwhile to discuss this subject in light of the ongoing thread "Evidence for a recent flood". In that thread many claims are made regarding the source of the flood water. Discussion of that would be off topic in that thread (I think) and it would be useful to have all the claims together in one thread.


    ADMIN writes:

    Assuming you would like evidence for where the water came from and where it went, I don't think this would be off-topic for the Evidence for a recent flood thread.


    Topic Starter writes:

    It's not so much asking for evidence as asking for the "models" proposed to be examined for plausibility with regard to current science.
    In the thread "Evidence for a recent flood", the source of the water is claimed to be the fountains of the deep. As far as I can tell, these fountains resulted from the release of water from the mantle (so the argument goes).
    A rough calculation puts the amount of water required to flood the entire earth at 2046 million cubic km. To help get an idea of what that means, the Earth's crust is estimated to be 1332 million cubic km (I googled that). The temperature of the mantle ranges from 1400C to 3000C with densities ranging from 3.4 - 4.3 g/cm2.

    What effect would 2000 million cubic km of superheated pressurised water have on the atmosphere, crust and life if it was released to the surface over a period of 40 days? What sort of atmospheric temperatures are we talking about here?

    When water becomes steam it increases in volume by 1600 times, giving us a total of 3.2 million million cubic km. In contrast, the earth's atmosphere is estimated to be 51,000 million cubic km so the volume of steam is 62.7 times the volume of the earth's atmosphere

    WARNING TO Dad: The topic started to diverge from the science with your post here: Message 307. Any further efforts to drag this topic away from the science forum format will be aggressively met with suspensions. --AdminPhat

    Edited by AdminPhat, : highlighting warning to dad


  • Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
  • Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation.
  • The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 377 by dad, posted 07-22-2020 4:08 PM dad has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 381 by dad, posted 07-23-2020 4:33 PM AdminPhat has responded
     Message 382 by dad, posted 07-23-2020 4:41 PM AdminPhat has not yet responded
     Message 385 by Juvenissun, posted 07-29-2020 7:51 AM AdminPhat has not yet responded

      
    AdminPhat
    Administrator
    Posts: 1985
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-03-2004


    Message 384 of 432 (879865)
    07-23-2020 7:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 381 by dad
    07-23-2020 4:33 PM


    Re: TOPIC SYNOPSIS REFOCUSED
    Yes. The onus is on you to provide proof for your counter-assertion.

  • Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
  • Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation.
  • The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 381 by dad, posted 07-23-2020 4:33 PM dad has not yet responded

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021