Flood Geology II

After a quick scan of the previous thread, I noticed some of these points touched upon, but not examined in depth:

Issue One: Volume of water required.

The flood covered the planet (according to Genesis) and Mount Everest is 8,848 meters tall. The diameter of the earth at the equator, is 12,756.8 km. We need to calculate the volume of water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth plus Everest; then subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth. This isn’t perfect, but close enough.

Everest
V= 4/3 * pi * 6387.248 km cubed
V= 1.09151 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.09151e2 km3)
Earth at sea level
V= 4/3 * pi * 6378.4 km cubed
V = 1.08698 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.08698e12 km3)

The difference between these two figures is the amount of water needed to just cover the Earth: 4.525 x 10 to the ninth cubic kilometers (4,525,000,000,000). Where did all that water come from?


Issue Two: The weight of all that water.

Water at STP weighs in at 1 gram/cubic centimeter:

4.252e09 km3 of water,
X 106 (= cubic meters),
X 106 (= cubic centimeters),
X 1 g/cm3 (= grams),
X 10-3 (= kilograms),
equals 4.525e21 kg.
The mass of the earth is 5.972e24 kg!

What are the effects of that much weight? In the Pleistocene, continental ice sheets covered many of the northern states and most all of Canada. We’ll call the area covered by the Wisconsinian advance was 10,000,000,000 km2, by an average thickness of 1 km of ice (a good estimate... lots of places online to confirm this). 1.00x1007 km2 X 1 km thickness equals 1.00E+07 km3 of ice. The weight of all that ice is just about 0.23% of the water needed for the flood.

The Wisconsinian advance ended about 25,000 years ago, and the flood about 4,000 years ago. Due to these late Pleistocene glaciations the mass of the ice has depressed the crust of the Earth. Now that the ice is gone, the crust is slowly rising (called glacial rebound); and this rebound can be measured, in places (like northern Wisconsin), in centimetres/year. Glacial rebound can only be measured, obviously, in glaciated areas (the Sahara is not rebounding as it was not glaciated during the Pleistocene). So why don’t we see global rebound from the more recent flood?


Issue Three: Kinetic energy release of 40 days of global rain.

We’re going to assume that enough rain fell in 40 days to result in the water volume calculated in Issue One. The amount of mass falling to Earth is 1.10675e20 kilograms daily. The energy released each day is 1.73584e25 joules. The amount of energy the Earth would have to radiate per m2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the Earth times number of seconds in one day. That is: e = 1.735384e25/(4*3.14159* ((6386)2*86,400)) = 391,935.0958 j/m2/s.

Currently, the Earth radiates energy at the rate of approximately 215 joules/m2/sec and the average temperature is 280 K. Using the Stefan- Boltzman 4'th power law to calculate the increase in temperature:

E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T4 (normal)
E (normal) = 215
E (increase) = 391,935.0958
T (normal) = 280.
and T (increase) equals 1800 K.

The temperature would rise 1800 K, or 1,526, or 2,780. Obviously, this is a temperature the earth and Noah could not survive. Even if the rain accounted for only 10% of the flood waters, the teperature is much too high.
 

Josephus

<b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b>
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2000
3,750
313
Kerbal Space Center
✟150,343.00
Faith
Messianic
Boo. Bad science.

Good math, but bad investigative science.

The water never went anywhere. It's still here. It's called the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans. If you want proof, look no further than the depth of the deepest ocean, and THEN compare that to the height of the tallest mountain.

You will find a serious disparity favoring flooding.

It is common knowledge that the weight of the oceans is what pushed up the land we now have today, and it is no wonder that if the land were made to be flat worldwide, that the ocean would cover it to a depth of 2 miles.

As NASA so poetically describes it:

"Without plate tectonics, new mountain belts could not form. Earth would be a Waterworld with occasional shield volcanoes emerging briefly above the waves."

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01x1.html
 
Upvote 0

Josephus

<b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b>
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2000
3,750
313
Kerbal Space Center
✟150,343.00
Faith
Messianic
Mount Everest lies between Tibet and Nepal in southern Asia. It is 9 kilometers high. The waters from the worldwide Flood of Noah's time would cover a fairly level earth only to about 3 kilometers.

But Mount Everest was formed after or during the Flood. We know this because its higher parts contain fossils of sea creatures and seashells, showing that it is made of rock that was once under water.

Before the Flood, the mountains were not as high as today, and the ocean valleys were not as deep. Mount Everest and other high mountains were pushed up by the enormous underwater volcanic activity of the Flood (“the fountains of the great deep” — Genesis 7:11) and carved out by the rapid draining away of the waters into the ocean valleys.

So the water didn't have to cover Mount Everest and the other high mountains we see today, because they didn't exist before the Flood. There were some hills in the pre-Flood world of course (Genesis 7:19), and it was these that the Bible speaks of when it says the mountains were covered to a depth of 15 cubits (6.75 meters) during the Flood.
 
Upvote 0

Josephus

<b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b>
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2000
3,750
313
Kerbal Space Center
✟150,343.00
Faith
Messianic
"And, are you really saying you believe there were no oceans prior to the flood? (I hope not, I thought you were smarter than that.)"

I wouldn't say there wasn't an ocean, though I would probably postulate quite logically that there was more landmass than ocean.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Josephus
The water never went anywhere. It's still here. It's called the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans. If you want proof, look no further than the depth of the deepest ocean, and THEN compare that to the height of the tallest mountain.

Such a comparison would logically have nothing to do with where the water in the oceans came from.

It is common knowledge that the weight of the oceans is what pushed up the land we now have today, and it is no wonder that if the land were made to be flat worldwide, that the ocean would cover it to a depth of 2 miles.

Only among creationists is this common knowledge. What actually forces the continents upward is the bouyant force of the asthenosphere displaced by the continental crust.

As NASA so poetically describes it:

"Without plate tectonics, new mountain belts could not form. Earth would be a Waterworld with occasional shield volcanoes emerging briefly above the waves."

I thought you said it was the weight of the oceans the force the continents upward. Do you now agree that it is and has been plate tectonics in conjunction with at bouyant continental crust?
 
Upvote 0
IF you assume that the water was formed at the cloud level by the power of God out of nowhere (using the same process used to create the universe?), issues 1 & 3 vanish. The energy from falling from cloud level can be absorbed by the rain itself. Just assume it was a cold rain.

Any complaints with this possibility? If not, let's focus on why Wisconsin is rising, but Illinois is not. Maybe it's because Illinois has more people, but then again, Wisconsinites match them pound for pound! :)
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Josephus
But Mount Everest was formed after or during the Flood. We know this because its higher parts contain fossils of sea creatures and seashells, showing that it is made of rock that was once under water.

Those fossils are very old, much older than the supposed flood. Also, are you trying to tell us that in the relatively brief period of the flood, enough sea creatures died and fossilized to leave a record on mountain tops. Are you aware of how long the fossilization process takes?


Before the Flood, the mountains were not as high as today, and the ocean valleys were not as deep.


What is your geologic evidence for this claim?


So the water didn't have to cover Mount Everest and the other high mountains we see today, because they didn't exist before the Flood.

Well, you seem able to gleem much from the Bible the agerage person cannot. How high were the Biblical mountains then?
 
Upvote 0

Josephus

<b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b>
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2000
3,750
313
Kerbal Space Center
✟150,343.00
Faith
Messianic
"What is your geologic evidence for this claim?"

The bible records it.


"Those fossils are very old, much older than the supposed flood."

Another assumption. All you have are fossils, not old fossils - that's an interpretation.

"Also, are you trying to tell us that in the relatively brief period of the flood, enough sea creatures died and fossilized to leave a record on mountain tops. Are you aware of how long the fossilization process takes?"

Are you aware how long fossilization takes? From my readings, given the right conditions (which were prevelant after the Flood) it can happen as soon as a few hundred years.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,046
51,497
Guam
✟4,907,063.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The temperature would rise 1800 K, or 1,526, or 2,780. Obviously, this is a temperature the earth and Noah could not survive. Even if the rain accounted for only 10% of the flood waters, the teperature is much too high.
No, the temperature is not 'much too high'.

It could have been 10 times that temperature and Noah would still have survived.

Remember Daniel's three friends in the burning, fiery furnace?

How did they survive?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,046
51,497
Guam
✟4,907,063.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
YouTube - Noah's Flood - a theory in crisis

Man, that was the bottom of the barrel, wasn't it?

The Flood was a tsunami, was it? Noah shut the door? the ocean floor broke up?

Just wow.

I noticed too that that ocean liner was broadsided; for maximum effect, I'm sure.

This was 2:59 of pure failure.
 
Upvote 0

wensdee

Active Member
Jan 24, 2011
354
12
✟595.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
No, the temperature is not 'much too high'.

It could have been 10 times that temperature and Noah would still have survived.

Remember Daniel's three friends in the burning, fiery furnace?

How did they survive?
Miracle after miracle after miracle, everything is true because everything was one big miracle, the words in the bible mean nothing because all creationists believe in is magic, your god is nothing more than an imagined magician.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nostromo

Brian Blessed can take a hike
Nov 19, 2009
2,343
56
Yorkshire
✟17,838.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It could have been 10 times that temperature and Noah would still have survived.
Yet He had Noah build a boat to avoid being drowned?

I appreciate that such a thing could have happened were we to believe in Him as described, but do you not see the strange disharmony in this situation?
 
Upvote 0

Exiledoomsayer

Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this
Jan 7, 2010
2,196
64
✟10,237.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Man, that was the bottom of the barrel, wasn't it?

The Flood was a tsunami, was it? Noah shut the door? the ocean floor broke up?

Just wow.

I noticed too that that ocean liner was broadsided; for maximum effect, I'm sure.

This was 2:59 of pure failure.

I kid you not AV this is what other christians believe, a good deal of the footage is from christains explaining how the flood happend.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Glacial rebound can only be measured, obviously, in glaciated areas (the Sahara is not rebounding as it was not glaciated during the Pleistocene). So why don’t we see global rebound from the more recent flood? h.

The weight of the floodwater may have pushed whole continents downward causing the thinner oceanic crusts to bulge upwards thus actually deepening the water over the land mass. Because everyone except the eight were dead no one noticed whole continents rebounding after the floodwaters abated. Heavier, mountainous land masses would have sunk the lowest, accounting for their being completely covered. Perhaps Everest and the Himalayas lent their great weight to the effort.
 
Upvote 0

Exiledoomsayer

Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this
Jan 7, 2010
2,196
64
✟10,237.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The weight of the floodwater may have pushed whole continents downward causing the thinner oceanic crusts to bulge upwards thus actually deepening the water over the land mass. Because everyone except the eight were dead no one noticed whole continents rebounding after the floodwaters abated. Heavier, mountainous land masses would have sunk the lowest, accounting for their being completely covered. Perhaps Everest and the Himalayas lent their great weight to the effort.

What never ceases to amaze me is how there is no geological evidence for any of that happening within a year, and plenty to the contrary
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,046
51,497
Guam
✟4,907,063.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yet He had Noah build a boat to avoid being drowned?
An ark.
I appreciate that such a thing could have happened were we to believe in Him as described, but do you not see the strange disharmony in this situation?
No, I sure don't.

Let me guess though.

You're going to ask me why God didn't just annihilate the population, instead of drowning them -- is that correct?
 
Upvote 0