Some water measurements for the Flood

Neat how you are able to deduce their agenda and determine they are wrong with out even reading it.

I'd say it's a fair educated guess that when two lone guys claim there's a fault in the translation of the Bible, against a few millennia of opinion to the contrary, against all the translators down the centuries who were immersed in the Biblical languages from childhood, and against the general opinion of the whole Christian community today, and when you like their opinion because it helps you justify your belief in the Old Earth which a lot of us consider to be an out and out contradiction of the Bible, well, it's not a great leap to conclude they are most likely wrong.

What if it rained for forty days over the entire surface of the earth at pretty much the minimum amount that can be considered rain?

quote:

---

Rainfall intensity is classified according to the rate of precipitation:

Light rain — when the precipitation rate is < 2.5 mm (0.098 in) per hour
Moderate rain — when the precipitation rate is between 2.5 mm (0.098 in) - 7.6 mm (0.30 in) or 10 mm (0.39 in) per hour
Heavy rain — when the precipitation rate is > 7.6 mm (0.30 in) per hour, or between 10 mm (0.39 in) and 50 mm (2.0 in) per hour
Violent rain — when the precipitation rate is > 50 mm (2.0 in) per hour

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain

a light rainfall is less than .098 inches per hour. Let's use .05" per hour, which is a very, very light rain, - really more of a drizzle.

This equals 48" of rain over a 40 day period. (.05 * 24 * 40) or 4 feet of rain total.

plugging this number into JonF's spreadsheet from Message 203 we get that the temperature at the surface of the earth after precipitation of this amount of water is:

****

And the initial temperature needed to maintain that volume of vapor is:

****

Hmmm? natural processes?

HBD

ABE: I am currently disputing these calculations for initial temperature (see Message 261), so I have removed them from this post. However, the increase in temperature that would be required of that amount of precipitation seems correct which would be an increase of 316^oF. Quite significant!

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Edited by herebedragons, : corrected "change in temperature" value in deg F

against the general opinion of the whole Christian community today

Of course, the "Christian community" is only those who are YEC. Those with other opinions are outside the Christian community.

and when you like their opinion because it helps you justify your belief in the Old Earth

I want to know the truth. If the truth is that the earth is young, I'll go with that. It doesn't seem to be the case. I don't need to justify any belief, I need to understand reality. I didn't start out with the belief that the earth is old, so no need to look for a way to justify it.

You are the one trying to justify your beliefs by coming up with wacky notions about vapor canopies and sedimentation that defies physics, ect, ect.

it's not a great leap to conclude they are most likely wrong.

Of course not, all those who disagree ...

If you at all cared about the truth, you would find that they talk nothing about the age of the earth in that book, other than to mention that it is a controversy in our churches today. Their premise is to look at the story of Genesis 1 in the context of how the original author and the original audience would have understood it.

HBD

Creation Science is a special study of Genesis for the specific purpose of answering the false sciences of Evolution and the Old Earth Creation science is a pack of lies, half-truths, misleading statements, and false science intended to support a particular position that is asserted to be "The Truth"

It's an attempt to preserve the word of God as the word of God against the tide of false science that causes so many people to lose faith in it. That's the only "particular position" involved. And the word of God IS the Truth. All the finagling to change the translation and read millions of years into the text and all the other shenanigans are also ways to try to preserve the text against the general assault, but by altering God's word rather than defending it, and I think a great deal of Creation Science does a pretty good job.

I began my journey about 7 years ago and I was a YEC, simply by default - because that is just what Christians believed.

Yes, that's how most people are YECs. It's a very vulnerable position to be in because all you have is what you've been told. I started out knowing zip about any of it, became a Christian in the late 80s, started reading Creation Science in the early 90s, so I got it all fresh you could say and was convinced by it -- was convinced by the general enterprise at least and a lot of the specifics.

That's what the Bible says, right? I was a bit offended by a friend of mine who took a more liberal approach to the issue of origins and stated the we don't know, God could have used evolution or whatever means he wanted to create. I remember telling my wife "He's a bit too liberal for me." Well, I lead the youth group at my local church and someone introduced me to the "Answers in Genesis" idea and it made a lot of sense to me. Genesis was the foundation of the Bible, the starting point. If that crumbles, the whole Bible crumbles, right? So I decided to do a series on creation vs. evolution for youth group. I was given a book by Kent Hovind that "debunked" evolution and made sense of the "truth" about creation. As I worked though that book, I began to notice things that just didn't make sense. By the time I was finished with it, I was scratching my head and thinking, "something just doesn't add up." I began to do some of my own research on the subject and it was during that time that I found my way here to EvC. I started finding that these creation science claims were not all they were claimed to be (to say the least).

Pardon me if I say that if you were convinced by the stuff at EvC you are a pushover.

My faith was crushed. What I was discovering was that the Biblical claims (or more specifically creation science claims which were presented as Biblical claims) did not hold true. Genesis was crumbling around me and so was my faith, because, of course, if Genesis falls so does the entire Bible. I managed to maintain a semblance of normalcy, but inside I was on the verge of becoming an atheist.

This is a very typical very sad story. And yet it's all based on an illusion of science and not on science. Maybe I will try to put together a thread on the scientific method as I suggested, not that I think I know enough to do the best job or that I'd even be particularly good at it, but just because I'm the only one here with the passion for it. It infuriates me that this bogus science of the past has the power to convince people away from the Bible when it's nothing but a huge flimflam deception house of cards fantasy. Biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the human race.

One of the things this search did for me was re-kindle my love of science. I was a displaced worker (from the automotive industry) so I was unemployed and unable to find suitable work. I decided to go back to school and pursue a career in biology. My wife worked at a local Christian liberal arts university and I was able to enroll in classes for free. I fell in love with the biological sciences.

Despite all the accusations against me here I think science is great stuff. REAL science.

I had some really strong Christian professors who were not YEC, and I began to have hope that there may be some way to reconcile this conflict. My personal conflict eased a bit and I kind of sat on the fence for a while, unsure; thinking that if I just didn't really face it, it would just not be an issue. The turning point for me came when I took a course called "Genes and Speciation." 1/3 of the course explored how speciation occurred, 1/3 looked at the history of the earth from a scientific view, and 1/3 spent time comparing the different views on origins. The course was taught by one of the most intelligent men I have ever met. He is also a very devout Christian and a lover of the Bible. He leads the Bible quizzing group at his church and practically has the entire Bible memorized (no seriously). When he worked out at the gym, he would have his Bible in front of him and would be memorizing scripture. He is also an amazing scientist, he has published numerous journal articles and a book on stem cell research.

He must have been very impressive. But he also has to have retranslated or otherwise changed Genesis to accommodate some of his views of science, yes?

One of the assignments was to read and review a YEC book. The book I choose was Jonathan Sarfati's Refuting Evolution. What I found was that not one of his "refutations" was unequivocally true. Every one of his claims was either a half truth, a misrepresentation or simply misleading. EVERY ONE! Now I realize that one book does not speak for the whole of creation science, but Sarfati is well respected in YEC circles; Refuting Evolution is a highly regarded book by YECs. And yet it is full of untruth; full of it! Not an occasional error but the entirety. (It is not the only creation science source I have explored and few of them fare any better)

Of course such a paragraph is nothing but a statement of your opinion, the impact it had on you, and I haven't read Sarfati. Yours is a typical opinion one encounters all the time.

This did it for me, it broke any connection I had to YEC. At this point I was unsure about how to resolve this "conflict" but I knew I was not a YEC. Do we defend the truth of the Bible with lies, half-truths, misrepresentations and made up nonsense? I can't accept that. But to a YEC, it doesn't matter how dishonest the approach is; as long as it defends the initial premise.

Excuse me but I BELIEVE what I say whether you do or not. My guess about what happened to you was that you were persuaded by the usual presentations of historical science that use all the right terminology and sound good but are not really sound.

Faith, I write this not to convince you that I am right in my opinions, but so that you can see that it is not that I have some agenda to discredit the Bible or to shoehorn my beliefs into the Biblical account, but that I came about this position in an honest, sincere search for the truth.

That's fine. Your story is interesting. I didn't think of you as lying though, although you apparently don't extend the same grace to me. I just think you are wrong, got persuaded to an illusion of science.

And this search found YEC wanting, empty of truth. And I know that there are many non-YEC Christians who have had a very similar experience as my own. As well, there are many who were unable to reconcile their faith because of YEC teaching and have fallen away. I also want to point out that you are doing this typical YEC nonsense in this very thread. You will cling to the vapor canopy idea despite that fact that it is completely untenable.

The arguments used against it are just the usual stuff, and I haven't spent time on the idea, it just came up in this thread, so don't talk about how I'm "clinging" to anything. I'm just sick of the delusions that pass for science and are forced on people here. All those calculations about what WOULD have happened with a vapor canopy cannot be anything but conjecture, no consideration of any possibly mitigating circumstance. The first idea is enough for these guys. It's all mere conjecture and it's used to topple anything any YEC proposes, mere conjecture because those things cannot be KNOWN, and I'm sick of being called names because I don't give in to the vaporings (pardon the pun) of kneejerk Bible debunkers. I don't care what the vapor canopy was or if it's the right word for whatever existed, but something existed and the idea is NOT stupid and has NOT been proved untenable on the basis of a few pseudoscientific musings. Sorry.

You deviate from a clear reading of the text which paints a picture far different from a vapor canopy and yet you cling to this un-Biblical idea tenaciously (NoNukes pointed out this in Message 236). And you expect anyone to buy into this?

I haven't deviated from anything.

Truly I don't expect you to become an old earther or whatever, that is not what I am trying to accomplish by having this discussion. What I want you to acknowledge is that just because I (and others) have a different approach to understanding the book of Genesis, doesn't make us non-believers. It doesn't mean we hate the Bible or want to destroy it. There is not an agenda to turn the Bible into a myth. It is a sincere, honest search to understand reality, to reconcile what Scripture says with what we observe in the physical world.

I haven't questioned your motives, but to accomplish your aims leads you to discredit the Bible and that's what I object to.

However, what I am expecting you will do is cling to your ideas like you are infallible. No quarter; no possibility of looking at this issue through someone else's eyes.

That's ridiculous. It's very clear that to hold the position you hold requires twisting the Bible in one way or another. You may be doing that "sincerely" but from my point of view this is not just another way of looking at reality, this is attacking God's truth. I don't care about vapor canopy, I just resent the way all YEC ideas are treated as stupid based on nothing but flimsy kneejerk half-baked biased pseudoscience, which you seem to be supporting.

I expect that you will not abandon the vapor canopy idea no matter what, because it is all you've got.

I have never in my life argued a word for the vapor canopy until this thread and in this case I got pushed into it by the stupid anti-YEC arguments, so I think YOU need to get a lot clearer about what *I* am saying before you pass judgment as you are doing.

I expect that you won't even really read this post because its too long and you don't really care what I have to say anyway. The only thing that matters is that you be right. So be it.

I think you need to turn that criticism on yourself.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

against the general opinion of the whole Christian community today Of course, the "Christian community" is only those who are YEC. Those with other opinions are outside the Christian community.

The whole Christian community is just about everybody besides those two guys as far as I know, it's got nothing to do with YEC.

But yes of course I object to rewriting the Bible especially when it IS based on an agenda determined by a worldly viewpoint which is what the false sciences of the past are.

and when you like their opinion because it helps you justify your belief in the Old Earth I want to know the truth.

I'm not disputing that but you ARE attracted to their argument because it supports the Old Earth which you ARE committed to now.

If the truth is that the earth is young, I'll go with that. It doesn't seem to be the case. I don't need to justify any belief, I need to understand reality. I didn't start out with the belief that the earth is old, so no need to look for a way to justify it.

Except that now you are so committed to it you ARE attracted to such arguments as this book offers for that reason.

You are the one trying to justify your beliefs by coming up with wacky notions about vapor canopies and sedimentation that defies physics, ect, ect.

'
Yeah I keep hearing how I'm defying physics, so far it hits me as just another crazy off the wall accusation so I ignore it.

it's not a great leap to conclude they are most likely wrong. Of course not, all those who disagree ...

I made my case. Their position is awfully flimsy.

If you at all cared about the truth, you would find that they talk nothing about the age of the earth in that book, other than to mention that it is a controversy in our churches today. Their premise is to look at the story of Genesis 1 in the context of how the original author and the original audience would have understood it.

'But why? You are clearly interested in it because of how it justifies your position ON THIS THREAD which is about the Old Earth whether they argue that directly or not. Or at least because of how they attack the underpinnings of YEC.

They are JUST TWO GUYS, HBD, against the entire history of Bible scholarship and translation.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Jon, I was fooling around with your spreadsheet and I tried to figure out what the smallest amount of water that could be plugged in and get a livable temperature. Even at very, very low numbers (10^-24) the temperature still needs to 100^oC. This can't be right. Water vapor does exist in the atmosphere even below that temperature. At 20^oC, saturation is something like 2%, so a considerable amount of water vapor should exist even at 20^oC.

I am not sure how to remedy this. I think it may involve a more complex calculation.

Wikipedia says that

quote:

---

The percentage water vapor in surface air varies from .01% at -42^oC; to 4.24% when the dew point is 30^oC.

---

So perhaps after saturation reaches 4.24%@30^oC (maximum saturation at 1 atm) , the temperature will need to increase significantly in order to force more water vapor into the atmosphere. I am not really sure.

Maybe another thing to figure would be if the atmosphere was completely saturated with water (ie 4.24%) what would the total volume be and how deep would it cover the surface.

Also

quote:

---

The mean annual precipitation for the planet is about 1 meter

---

Which would be about .36 feet in 40 days. It could certainly rain at that rate with out the temperature being significantly different.

The calculation for increase in temperature after condensation seems right, though, and that alone should be enough to show that raining 60 feet of water is untenable.

HBD

ABE: actually I found another error in the calculation of the conversion from change in temp ^oC to change in temp in ^oF. For every 1 degree change in ^oC, ^oF changes by 1.8 degrees. What you have to do is convert BEFORE subtracting. So for example, a change from 1^oC to 0^oC would be a change from 33.8^oF to 32^oF, a change of 1.8^o.

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Everything you quote has "windows" or "doors" of heaven being clearly metaphorical.

Sure, in the sense that they are not talking about something like this:

But the Bible clearly says that there is a solid dome up in the sky that is holding the upper waters, and that there are some kind of openings in it, that the Lord can control, that can let through water and other things.

Or do you think the firmament is a metaphor as well? What would it be a metaphor for? Its solid, or firm, and it has holes in it that let water and mana through. What could that possibly be a metaphor for?

God makes EVERYTHING happen, very little of it miraculous, and there's nothing miraculous about rain.

Yeah, but this isn't just a random rainy day. God was upset with his creation and he wanted to wipe it out with a flood, so he caused it to rain for that specific purpose.

It has to be because of God's will, otherwise it would just be a coincidence that it happened to start raining right when God wanted to flood the world.

You tried to make up some stuff about sin causing the rain, or something, but that just doesn't fit. God was mad, and he caused it to rain, himself. He did it on purpose to destroy his creation. That is a miracle, by definition.

I pulled up all the "I will" phrases in the Bible and those attributed to God are just about all...

Okay, lets look at those exceptions and see what they are talking about. What are the verses?

But the Bible clearly says that there is a solid dome up in the sky that is holding the upper waters, and that there are some kind of openings in it, that the Lord can control, that can let through water and other things. Or do you think the firmament is a metaphor as well? What would it be a metaphor for? Its solid, or firm, and it has holes in it that let water and mana through. What could that possibly be a metaphor for?

The dome-like APPEARANCE of the heavens or sky from earth I would assume. I just took a look through three commentaries at Blue Letter Bible and all of them refer to the firmament as just another word for the heavens or sky, one calling it "poetic."

Yeah, but this isn't just a random rainy day.

No, but it's extraordinary because it's the first rain ever and the first time the "windows of heaven" and the "fountains of the deep" were released, but otherwise God didn't DO all that in any unusual way, it's the way He always works in events.

God was upset with his creation and he wanted to wipe it out with a flood, so he caused it to rain for that specific purpose.

Right and He caused the Babylonians to attack Israel for the specific purpose of punishing them too.

It has to be because of God's will, otherwise it would just be a coincidence that it happened to start raining right when God wanted to flood the world.

But that is how all things happen that God causes in the normal course of things. God causes EVERYTHING, as I keep saying, and they all happen "right when" they are supposed to happen whether we have any clue to that fact or not.

You tried to make up some stuff about sin causing the rain, or something, but that just doesn't fit. God was mad, and he caused it to rain, himself. He did it on purpose to destroy his creation. That is a miracle, by definition.

Not if God also says He causes calamity in a city, causes an enemy to come against Israel, causes a great nation to come of the descendants of Abraham and so on. That makes the Flood a normal event in the way God works.

ABE: But of course it's ALL about sin. No sin no Flood. No sin no Babylonian or Assyrian invasion. No sin no calamity in a city.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The dome-like APPEARANCE of the heavens or sky from earth I would assume.

No, the Bible clearly states that there is a dome in the sky that is solid and firm. If it wasn't solid, then how does it hold the up the upper waters in the sky? And why would it need holes in it for the water to pour through if it wasn't solid?

We can even see in Job 37:18:

quote:

---

With Him, have you spread out the skies,
Strong as a cast metal mirror?

---

The Bible tells us that there is a solid dome in the sky, that has holes in it, and has water above it.

No, but it's extraordinary because it's the first rain ever

That's debatable. In Gen 2:6:

quote:

---

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

---

Mist coming up from the earth and then watering the ground sounds just like water evaporating and precipitating, which is rain.

but otherwise God didn't DO all that in any unusual way, it's the way He always works in events.

The fact that God did DO it is one of the things that makes it a miracle.

Right and He caused the Babylonians to attack Israel for the specific purpose of punishing them too.

The Babylonians have free will. I agree that God "pushing" them to do something is not really miraculous like when he does something directly himself. Which is what he did with the flood.

See Gen 6:17

quote:

---

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

---

The Lord himself, even himself, brought the waters upon the earth.

But that is how all things happen that God causes in the normal course of things. God causes EVERYTHING, as I keep saying, and they all happen "right when" they are supposed to happen whether we have any clue to that fact or not.

There's a difference between God being the cause of everything, and God actually doing something himself. With the Flood, he himself brought the water for his purpose specifically. That's different than how regular things happen on their own but God is behind them.

Not if God also says He causes calamity in a city, causes an enemy to come against Israel, causes a great nation to come of the descendants of Abraham and so on.

Why not?

That makes the Flood a normal event in the way God works.

How so?

But of course it's ALL about sin. No sin no Flood.

I guess, but the sin did not cause the Flood.

quote:

---

Gen 6

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

---

God was upset that his creation grew wicked and he wanted to restart it. That's why he flooded the world. He did it, himself. It wasn't just some natural occurrence that was the result of sin. It was the Lord's doing.

That it was a result of the direct action of God, himself, something that he specifically did for his purpose, makes it a miracle. Its different that how "god is behind everything" because in this case he is the specific, immediate, and direct cause of the event.

As they say, it was "By the Hand of God", that is a miracle by definition.

It's really weird Faith, when you talk about science it's plainly garbage - which I suppose is understandable - but when you talk about the bible it's just as bad.

It's a pretty impressive delusion.

Funny, you and the two who gave you Cheers are three of the most weird producers of garbage arguments I encounter here.

I competely understand your need to believe that.

You're the little girl walking in the Sunday church parade; everyone is out of step except you. All the spectators can see it, people are shouting for you to get into step, but you know that you're right and everyone else needs to change, not you.

Good luck with that.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Your personal comments are sleazy and unwarranted.

Faith writes: Your personal comments are sleazy and unwarranted.

I competely understand your need to believe that.

So everyone behave themselves least I do something harsh.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Didn't think hard enough about toggling ID.