Existence of Noah's Ark

You certainly did support a hypothesis based only on your "common sense". As common sense generally fails in complex problems, and as you don't have even a fraction of the data that you'd need, people are having serious problems with your methodology.Look, I'm just looking for you to concede that people who know what they're doing stand to have a far, far better chance of getting the correct answer than someone who is just guessing based on things that they know next to nothing about. If you'll concede this, we can move on to discussing the problem at hand.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Do we know the geographic make up of where the ark started?
Flat, I would suppose.There are many rivers that can flood above 20 feet, and then bleed on to the land. This is in small rainfall amounts of like 4-10 inches over a period of a day or 2.
*edit*
Another example would be the amazon river when it floods, and leaves behind lakes that are miles across.This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 09-28-2004 06:21 PM

---

For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

​

Why? Bush is a right wing nutcase.

Well, let's look at some major floods. We could start close to home. How deep does the water get when the Mississippi floods?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Since the earth is 75% water, and 25% land. You would need only to lower the oceans a little less than 7feet to cover the land with 20 feet of water.

---

1. I thought creationists typically viewed the several *Miles* of sediment layers as having been layed during this time. Please postulate a model in which several *miles* worth of land are layed down during a flood that covers the entire earth (remembering that water generally flows downhill).2. 20 feet of water won't do anything in rugged territory.3. The ark ended up on Mt. Ararat, remember?4. 7 feet of water being removed from the oceans and into the atmosphere right before the flood? Lets do the math. 360 million square kilometers of oceans. Lets say that we're dealing with 2 1/2 meters by 350 million kilometers meters squared. That's 875000 cubic kilometers of water, or 8.75e17 kilograms of water. This would be added directly to Earth's atmospheric pressure, with is 5.1e18kg. So, just to get your 7 feet of oceanwater into the air at any given time, you would increase the entire earth's atmospheric pressure by a third.However, it's not that simple. For one, the water vapor will not enter the atmosphere like that without a significant influx of heat. As long as it is in the atmosphere (at least it would be in the leadup to the flood, right?), it would have to bear that heat.In short, try and go much beyond 7 feet, and you have to turn the earth into a literal pressure cooker. Try and inbalance your influx of water vapor, too, and regions of earth become extra-intense pressure cookers.By the way. Would you care to address:1) Megatsunamis2) Thermal issues related to mineral formation the world-over (many reactions are exothermic, after all - like concrete forming - and we're talking *miles* of sediment). Thermal issues from sediment bendinf and fracturing (ever felt an iron rod that has just been bent? Picture that happening to the *entire surface of Earth*.)3) Interspersed volcanic layers - essentially *always* in proportionally thin sheets like form on land - whose heat of formation would easily boil off all water on Earth4) Deposits of things that don't deposit in moving-water conditions - footprints, dunes, eggshells, unsnapped plant matter, delicate animal bones, etc - and things that don't deposit underwater at all - alternating layers of salt and water-insoluable minerals, for example, which are only regional - and things that clearly would take ages to deposit, such as huge layers composed of diatom and plankton remains.5) The sorting (noone ever answers this one! And it's the reason why the early bible-literalist geologists reluctantly tossed the flood story in the first place (for several floods... and then more floods... and eventually, they had to ditch the whole flood idea altogether).6) The fact that fitting of all "kinds" into the ark using very broad "kinds" (family-level or so) requires that morphological features evolve, then their owners die off, and then the exact same morphological features evolve again in the fossil record after the flood; while narrow kinds (genus or species level) requires an ark of ridiculous scale.7) The justification for excluding hard-to-keep things, such as freshwater fish, corals (shallow, gentle water are generally a requirement, due to their delicate and sun-dependant structure), and river dolphins (or did these evolve after the flood, too? That would be an interesting discussion ), from the ark - and hard to keep things, such as leaf-cutter ants and their fungal colonies, ants that farm aphids,etc (did all of these diets and behaviors evolve after the flood?).8) The simple comparison between animal-density capabilities at zoos vs. the proposed density for even the most "broad kind" ark proposals being, to put it plainly, astronomically different. Zoos don't pack animals in close in non-ventilated areas with poor sanitation for good reason and everything eating dried food for no reason, you know9) The shipbuilding aspects; the largest wooden ships in the world (still smaller than the proposed ark) required large iron or steel reinforcements, and despite being built by teams of over a hundred people with far superior technology and resources at their disposal, sometimes had problems with the ships starting to rot on the docks before their construction was completed.ack.... I should stop, otherwise, I'll go on for pages.....This message has been edited by Rei, 09-28-2004 06:39 PM

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

No problem. If water runs down a hill fast enough, it'll roll right up the side of a mountain. That's just common sense, right?

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

I would love to converse with you on this subject, but you always seem dead set on proving me wrong no matter what I say, or explain.

---

Have you considered the possibility that it's because you actually are wrong?I know...can't possibly be. A person can't be wrong about everything, can he?Yet another thing you're wrong about. Yes, a person can be wrong about everything.

quote:

---

You don't understand what I am trying to explain, because you are so deaad set on believing the flood never happened

---

Incorrect.It isn't a question of believing. It's a question of topography.Did you try the experiment I asked you to try? Get an object, any object just so long as it won't float. Put it in the bathtub and fill the tub up until the object is halfway submerged.Now, using only the water in the tub and without moving or dismantling the object, get the object completely submerged so that it remains completely submerged for 20 minutes without any apparatus in the tub except the object. You are free to agitate and manipulate the water any way you like (except for freezing), but when you are done, everything comes out of the tub and we let it sit for 20 minutes and see if it's still submerged.You will note that I have not specified the size of the object. It can be as tiny or as large as you like. The only requirement is that it is submerged only about halfway.Did you try the experiment where you take a bucket that does float, put it in the tub so that it is submerged about halfway, draw a line at the waterline where the water comes up, and then fill up the bucket to overflowing using only the water from the tub? Did you notice that the water is now below the waterline you marked even though you have cause a flood inside the bucket? Did you notice that the outside of the bucket is still dry and, in fact, has seen an increase in dry land due to the removal of water from the outside of the bucket in order to put it inside?Did you? Did you try?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are the one claiming that you can "common sense" your way through most any subject.

---

​

That is not what I claimed

---

Did you or did you not claim in Message 49 of the "Polar ice caps and possible rise in sea level" thread: How is that not a claim that you can "common sense" your way through problems that puzzle people who do that sort of thing for a living?

quote:

---

You changed the question, do you even realize that?

---

You didn't answer mine, do you even realize that?Do you switch or don't you? Why or why not?And no, this isn't changing the subject. Did you or did you not say in Message 54 of this thread: Did you or did you not say in Message 60 of this thread: These are your claims. You were the one who brought it up. Therefore, how is it changing the subject to request you to justify them?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to schrafinator:

quote:

---

Since the earth is 75% water, and 25% land. You would need only to lower the oceans a little less than 7feet to cover the land with 20 feet of water.

---

How do you plan on keeping the ocean level suppressed that much?What is pushing down on the ocean to cause the water levels to overflow onto the dry land?What is keeping the water on the land and not running off back to the oceans?Remember, it is not sufficient to simply cover the land completely for a mere instant. You need to keep it covered without any assistance for 150 days (five months).That's why I am asking you to keep your bathtub object submerged for 20 minutes without any paraphernalia to keep the water there save the object, itself. I can easily see a "flood" of the earth if there were some sort of great siphon pulling water directly out of the ocean and dumping it on various high points of the continents and keeping it up so that there is a continual cycle of water going straight from the ocean to the top of Mt. Everest to flow down back into the ocean and be recycled.But eventually, you have to turn that siphon off and let it sit for 150 days at the end of which the earth still needs to be completely covered. There were 40 days of rain followed by 150 days of flood. Then and only then did the waters start to subside.

quote:

---

What we want to do is figure out the cycle of rain, and how much rain it would take to keep a flood going.

---

Irrelevant. I accept that such a cycle exists. Remember, I told you that you could do whatever you want and use whatever apparatus you desired in order to move the water in bathtub.The only restrictions are that you can only use the water in the tub, you cannot freeze the water, you cannot move or dismantle the object, and once you are done doing whatever it is that you are going to do, you must remove all apparatus from the tub leaving only the water and the object alone.After 20 minutes, we come back and look to see if the object is still submerged.

quote:

---

Add that with the a water from the polar caps, and you might have something.

---

No, you wouldn't.In order to flood the entire earth, you need a full shell of water sufficient to cover Mt. Everest (remember, water flows and we need to keep the entire earth covered for 5 months with nothing keeping the water there except for the earth, itself). That requires on the order of 10⁹ cubic miles of water of which we only have on the order of 10⁸ cubic miles. That includes the polar ice caps.And, of course, we cannot use the ocean water to do this because we need to flood the earth above sea level and all the water we have on earth is at sea level or below.You can move the water so that it is above Mt. Everest, but you can't keep it there. It flows back to the ocean.

quote:

---

A bath tub is a bad analogy. It does not represent the mass of land

---

Remember what ou said about needing to understand?The bathtub is not the mass of land. The bathtub is the ocean.The object in the bathtub is the mass of land.You see, I doubt we have the capability of creating a spheroid with sufficient gravitational pull to maintain a significant shell of water within the confines of the average human domicile.Therefore, we need something that is topologically equivalent. Have you ever played videogames like Asteroid? When you go off the edge of the screen on one side, you come back on the opposite side. That's a two-dimensional projection of a torus. With regard to the question of path, a flat surface that transports you from the top to the bottom and from the edge to the edge is topologically equivalent to a torus.Since we cannot create a sphere with a shell of water, we create a flat projection of it, much like a flat map represents the spherical globe. You will notice that I do not discuss the level of the water in the tub with respect to the walls of the tub. That's because in order to maintain the topology, the walls of the tub are simply physical devices we need to simulate the continuity of the water on the surface of the sphere.Instead, we are looking at the relationship of the water to the object.This is why I said that the question isn't really one of physics. It's a question of topology.Oh, and here's something for your "common sense" to consider: How high and low do the tides go? I point this out because that should give you a minimal concept of how much water can be moved within the space of 12 hours.Remember, we need to keep the earth submerged for five months with no active process cycling the water from the oceans to the land or physically keeping it in place.

quote:

---

If it rains in Kansas, how long does it take before that rain water reaches the ocean?

---

Irrelevant. The question you need to ask is, if it rains in Kansas, where did the water come from?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Really? Does it?
How much of the ocean is 7 feet or less, but wait, don't forget to add back in the polar cap water.Think before you speak.

I am well aware of that, but what I have been saying all along, is that does not make people "in the know" to be exclusive to correct ideas.Or does it give them the right to put down anyone's idea.

Ok, I got it, I used the wrong word, sheesh.

Worst one was almost 50 feet.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s1125.htm*edit* This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 09-29-2004 05:27 AM

1. I don't know what trditional creationalist view, as I am not one. I only believe in God.2. 20 feet of water if level wouldn't do anything in rugged territory, but if it rained 20 feet of water per day, it would..3. It ened up in the mountains of Ararat, not on a mountain neccesaraly.4. you may have a very valid point there. I did not realize that the pressure of the earth's atmosphere would change if all that water was added. But, the whole 7 feet of ocean would not be added at the same time. The cycle has to start somewhere, and I think you would need only 4' of ocean in the atmosphere at any given time.I also am not claiming to know the component to who it happened, only that if it did, there would be enough water here on earth to flood the earth. If I had to think about it, and I have. I would say the oceans would have to heat up quite a bit for this to happen. Then if the land is cooler, thats where the water would condense or rain. I don't want to discuss that now, as I have no idea how. First things first. Scientists always say there isn't enough water on the earth for the flood to happen, I am just proving them wrong, IF I am right.Part 21. What does "Megatsunamis" have to do with it?2. What would be the problem, be more specific.3. Again I am not sure how this would affect what I am saying.
Its my ignorance, I know, just bare with me.4. Are you trying to say that the flood, if it happened would wash away all these things?5. Sorting?6. I am not trying to prove that, only that there is enough water on the earth to flood it, given the right conditions.7. Fresh water fish could survive in the conditions I am saying. Plus if God wanted them to, they would. Again, I am only addressing the water issue.8. /\9. /\ /\Lets just deal with the water issue.

If it rained like I said it would, the ark would be washed out to see.
I am not relying on the story of Noah's ark to be 100% accurate. Only trying to prove that the earth can be flooded with the water thats here already.