A science question about the flood.

[Arikay]

Hello,

I said something in another thread that got me thinking. Ignoring all the other problems about the flood, say somehow the world gained enough water to flood the entire world and cover over the tallest mountain.

Would the water freeze over or would it insulate itself enough to keep from freezing?

 

[MSBS]

No real way to answer that...when you start out with a supernatural event, you can't really predict the outcome.

 

[nephilimiyr]

That would have to depend on how high the highest mountain was at that time.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Well four thousand years ago, that'd be Everest.

 

[Arikay]

MSBS: The bible does say that it rained, so im assuming there isnt anything super natural about the rain. sure the water was created out of no wear, but it was still water.

Neph: As rufus said, Everest. The last magnetic shift was 780,000 years ago. So theres a good chance that it had nothing to do with the mountains all forming at once only 5000 years ago.

So would the water freeze being that high up?

 

[nephilimiyr]

Where is the evidence that the last magnetic shift was 780,000 ago?

 

[Arikay]

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20010419.html
At the bottom.

A bit more complicated info:
http://earth.agu.org/sci_soc/hoffman.html

Originally posted by nephilimiyr
Where is the evidence that the last magnetic shift was 780,000 ago?

 

[Zadok001]

Doesn't this question end up being "Was the flood salt water or fresh water?" It's obvious, of course, that fresh water would freeze at those elevations, but I'm likewise fairly certain that a massive body of salt water WOULDN'T.

 

[wehappyfew]

C'mon guys, get a grip...

If the Fluud raised sea-level to above Mt Everest, why would it be any colder? It's still sea-level, and the air is warmer at sea-level. Air pressure is still 14.7 psi, etc.

 

[Arikay]

Zadok: Thanks for the info. I am assuming its fresh water because it came from rain. Since the salt in salt water slowly acumulates over time.

Wehappyfew: Well, it does make sense, the problem is that the diameter of the earth would be larger. Air would spread out over the globe and the pressure would drop bellow current sea level pressure. Making it colder.

So that brings me to the question, how much larger would the diameter of the earth get? How many cubic meters of water would need to be added to reach this amount?

 

[nephilimiyr]

Arikay would it be possible that the tests to determine when the last magnetic shift happend were altered in a way to distort the age? In other words could it be possible that we just assume that the radiation levels and the C14 levels are the same now as they were 780,000 years ago or anywhere between?

The best evidence of magnetic pole shifts are preserved in the geological record. By studying lava fields in places like Hawaii, scientists "guesstimate" that the <B>most recent shift</B> occurred 780,000 years ago.

My question is how do these scientists do their guesstimations and if those guesstimations are subject to changes.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Scientists use a variety of ways to determine the magnetic reversal timescale. One way it has been verified is through the dating of magnetized rocks in paleomagnetic studies. Another is to study the magnetic anomalies of the seafloor which indicate linear patterns of reversals and normal polarities recorded by basalts magnetized as they cool at mid-ocean ridges and then spread away from these ridges. The dates of rocks collected from the continents in paleomagnetic studies can be cross referenced with the seafloor data as well as biostratigraphic studies of seafloor sediments to determine ages (looking at fossil types in marine strata).

The magnetic reversal timescale has been well established for a few decades now and there has been no evidence to indicate that it is incorrect.

 

[Arikay]

Well, of course we dont know anything for Certain, however we can make a a very good educated guess.

Well, c14 dating cant go back that far, as our very newest and very best technology can only use c14 to up to 50,000 years ago. There are quite a few different dating technologies. each has flaws, but by using multiple methods we can get a basic date of something. a link to info about multiple archeology methods is here: http://archaeology.about.com/cs/datingtechniques/index.htm

One of the ways we gain info about it, is ocean floor spreading. The ocean floor is constantly spreading from a mid ocean ridge. The rock that spreads out, also records the direction of the magnetic pole.

Originally posted by nephilimiyr
Arikay would it be possible that the tests to determine when the last magnetic shift happend were altered in a way to distort the age? In other words could it be possible that we just assume that the radiation levels and the C14 levels are the same now as they were 780,000 years ago or anywhere between?



My question is how do these scientists do their guesstimations and if those guesstimations are subject to changes.

 

[nephilimiyr]

But there's nothing that would ever distort the findings? I mean we assume that the same levels of C14 that we have know are the same levels that were 780,000 years ago. Is this reasonable? What would happend to the findings if at some point the level of C14 was changed drastically?

 

[Arikay]

1) With our current technology C14 dating only goes to 50,000 years ago, at the very most.

2) There are more ways to date stuff than just C14. All the dating methods have flaws and limitations, so they use more than one method to figure out the date.

Originally posted by nephilimiyr
But there's nothing that would ever distort the findings? I mean we assume that the same levels of C14 that we have know are the same levels that were 780,000 years ago. Is this reasonable? What would happend to the findings if at some point the level of C14 was changed drastically?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by nephilimiyr
But there's nothing that would ever distort the findings? I mean we assume that the same levels of C14 that we have know are the same levels that were 780,000 years ago. Is this reasonable? What would happend to the findings if at some point the level of C14 was changed drastically?

First of all, radiocarbon dating is not used in these cases. First of all, I wouldn't say there's much radiocarbon in an igneous basalt . Second, radiocarbon dating is only accurate to 50,000 years before present.

Third, with respect to a decay constant changing, there is no terrestrial condition which would cause this. Furthermore, dating also corresponds to our understanding of seafloor spreading rates. That is, you can predict the age of seafloor based upon present spreading rates and confirm it with a dating procedure: either radiometric or by biostratigraphic methods. Radiometric datings have not been shown to be flawed or that something would distort their findings; otherwise when cross referenced, dating methods would not match nor would they with other predictions.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Ok good enough, thank you both!

 

[Zadok001]

Back to the question at hand. It would require approximately this many feet of water:

30,621,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That's 30 undecacillion. I think that's the proper term. Suffice to say, it's a lot of water. (My calculations may be off, I'm a sociologist, not a mathematician.)

 

[Zadok001]

I should note that's cubic feet, not the height of Everest. Just in case anyone's that silly.

 

[Taffsadar]

It's intresting to note that whenever age is brought up is C14 dating mentioned... Even when creationist sites "investigates" evidence. As mentioned can it only measure the latest 50 000 years (still 44 000 years more than the existance of earth...). This obviouslt shows a lack of understanding for how&nbsp;radioactive materia falls apart. You can technically use all radioactive matter to determinate age (but Uran-235 might not be the best as it breakes down quickly). For example is&nbsp;Pb-208&nbsp;able to&nbsp;determinate the age for&nbsp;things&nbsp;several billion years old.