Flood Physics.

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence of the flood I propose would be nearly entirely degraded in the years since.

The flood I propose killed every human except those on the ark. Those few not drowned outright soon died of starvation and exposure.

Why would you assume that? We have evidence of older and weaker floods, if anything they should have been over written by Noah's flood. The lack of geological evidence refutes the flood. And as to your version, the fact that organ transplants are risky refutes your latest version. If Noah nad famil were all that were left the genetic bottleneck would be extremely obvious.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why would you assume that? We have evidence of older and weaker floods, if anything they should have been over written by Noah's flood. The lack of geological evidence refutes the flood. And as to your version, the fact that organ transplants are risky refutes your latest version. If Noah nad famil were all that were left the genetic bottleneck would be extremely obvious.

Reasonable assumptions are part of any theory. It is reasonable to assume that people fleeing a flood would not have the means to survive even if they made it to high ground. A slow flood moving over well established grasslands won't cause the erosion that is supposed by critics. One only needs to look at the root systems of the grasslands of the American west to realize how stable the soil would have been. Erosion evidence would be disparately scattered and very vulnerable to degradation over time. Of course there would be areas of severe erosion but it would be difficult to assign it to any particular flood.

The Prairie Roots Project | Tallgrass Prairie Center

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reasonable assumptions are part of any theory. It is reasonable to assume that people fleeing a flood would not have the means to survive even if they made it to high ground. A slow flood moving over well established grasslands won't cause the erosion that is supposed by critics. One only needs to look at the root systems of the grasslands of the American west to realize how stable the soil would have been. Erosion evidence would be disparately scattered and very vulnerable to degradation over time. Of course there would be areas of severe erosion but it would be difficult to assign it to any particular flood.

The Prairie Roots Project | Tallgrass Prairie Center

But you are not proposing a slow moving flood. Slow moving floods are not very intense. They are very small and very local. They can only exist in already existing flood plains. You are proposing something much much stronger. Also, your version of the Flood would mean that waking up in a seedy hotel bathtub full of ice and missing a kidney is a real possibility. You have not addressed that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But you are not proposing a slow moving flood. Slow moving floods are not very intense. They are very small and very local. They can only exist in already existing flood plains. You are proposing something much much stronger. Also, your version of the Flood would mean that waking up in a seedy hotel bathtub full of ice and missing a kidney is a real possibility. You have not addressed that.

I am proposing a slow moving tidelike flood that continued until the all inhabited regions of the earth were covered.

The post-flood narrative describes a population explosion with a large genetic base, clearly the result of the large gene pool carried over by seven of the eight survivors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am proposing a slow moving tidelike flood that continued until the all inhabited regions of the earth were covered.

The post-flood narrative describes a population explosion with a large genetic base, clearly the result of the large gene pool carried over by seven of the eight survivors.

You can't have both. A slow moving tidelike flood could only cover and uncover flat lowlying areas in this fashion. When you add topography into the mix fast moving water will occur.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You can't have both. A slow moving tidelike flood could only cover and uncover flat lowlying areas in this fashion. When you add topography into the mix fast moving water will occur.

Sure, but how fast? Remember that the flood water is coming in slowly from all directions, flowing around many topographical features instead of washing over them. This means much less erosion than supposed, and localized. For example if water rises (and recedes) equally on both sides of an obstacle, such as a mountain pass, there will be little erosion, as would be seen in unidirectional floods.

Even todays floods exhibit this, with water away from the main flood channel spreading out and engulfing vast areas in a slow moving tidelike flood. That today's floods carry vast amounts of mud and debris is testament to agricultural practices, which were unknown in Noah's day of limited population and tilled areas.

Also the dynamics of slow moving water doesn't allow for the supposed erosion that should have taken place using the popular notions of the flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, but how fast? Remember that the flood water is coming in slowly from all directions, flowing around many topographical features instead of washing over them. This means much less erosion than supposed, and localized. For example if water rises (and recedes) equally on both sides of an obstacle, such as a mountain pass, there will be little erosion, as would be seen in unidirectional floods.

Even todays floods exhibit this, with water away from the main flood channel spreading out and engulfing vast areas in a slow moving tidelike flood. That today's floods carry vast amounts of mud and debris is testament to agricultural practices, which were unknown in Noah's day of limited population and tilled areas.

Also the dynamics of slow moving water doesn't allow for the supposed erosion that should have taken place using the popular notions of the flood.

If your source is rain a lot of that water is coming down very fast. Anywhere with any topography at all you are going to have fast moving water that will erode massively as a result. The story did specify rain and "waters of the deep". And if it is slow moving people are still going to be able to out climb it in many areas around the world. And then you have to drain it away somehow. Have you seen what just low lying floods that can take months to clear away do? You are proposing something orders of magnitude greater and demanding little to no evidence. Worse yet you still cannot answer the population bottleneck problem, not just for man, but for all life. In fact it would be far worse for any 'unclean" creatures.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If your source is rain a lot of that water is coming down very fast. Anywhere with any topography at all you are going to have fast moving water that will erode massively as a result. The story did specify rain and "waters of the deep". And if it is slow moving people are still going to be able to out climb it in many areas around the world. And then you have to drain it away somehow. Have you seen what just low lying floods that can take months to clear away do? You are proposing something orders of magnitude greater and demanding little to no evidence. Worse yet you still cannot answer the population bottleneck problem, not just for man, but for all life. In fact it would be far worse for any 'unclean" creatures.

Any local heavy rainfall will cause substantial erosion in certain areas, but this is evident anywhere and at anytime. It is not the 'uniform evidence' required by deniers. The same rainfall in flat grasslands would leave little or no lasting evidence.

Recall that the flood did take months to drain back into the sea (from whence it came).

And while the "the windows of heaven were opened" might suggest 40 days of torrential downpours what it simply means is that it rained. The same with "the fountains of the great deep were broken up" simply means that the seas flooded the land.

And as suggested there was plenty of genetic diversity after the flood in the persons of the seven. They 'replenished the earth' like rabbits after the flood leaving no evidence of a population or genetic bottleneck.

 

[Smithi]

What on Earth is this doing in the physics section? There is nothing scientific about it whatsoever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any local heavy rainfall will cause substantial erosion in certain areas, but this is evident anywhere and at anytime. It is not the 'uniform evidence' required by deniers. The same rainfall in flat grasslands would leave little or no lasting evidence.

Recall that the flood did take months to drain back into the sea (from whence it came).

And while the "the windows of heaven were opened" might suggest 40 days of torrential downpours what it simply means is that it rained. The same with "the fountains of the great deep were broken up" simply means that the seas flooded the land.

And as suggested there was plenty of genetic diversity after the flood in the persons of the seven. They 'replenished the earth' like rabbits after the flood leaving no evidence of a population or genetic bottleneck.

Floods that last for a month or less leave marks that we can see for ages. You are talking about a flood that supposedly lasted for over a year. Massive amounts of water coming in from nowhere and going nowhere. The water left no mark. Nor have you any answer for the lack of a universal population bottleneck. When it comes to water coming from nowhere and going nowhere you enter the realm of physics. A flood is the most inefficient way possible for life on Earth to be eliminated. And you still have to explain why we don't see any record of it either geologically or biologically.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What on Earth is this doing in the physics section? There is nothing scientific about it whatsoever.

Hydrology is science. Most who deny the flood are unfamiliar with this science. Deniers believe the flood would have done this and would have done that, but a closer look at the actual flood model reveals that this just isn't the case.

For example, why doesn't fast moving water in a mud bottom trout stream not wash away the fine silt? I can stir it up with my foot and it settles back down to the bottom in a few feet, and the water runs clear again. Suspension and deposition models of different materials are never considered by those who deny the flood. They see a rushing, muddy, debris filled torrent on the evening news and immediately assign the same dynamics to the flood. It just didn't happen that way.

Many believe the ark would have broken apart and sunk it under it's own weight and size. But the fact is that if you don't want something to collapse under it's own weight and size you float it in water.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hydrology is science. Most who deny the flood are unfamiliar with this science. Deniers believe the flood would have done this and would have done that, but a closer look at the actual flood model reveals that this just isn't the case.

For example, why doesn't fast moving water in a mud bottom trout stream not wash away the fine silt? I can stir it up with my foot and it settles back down to the bottom in a few feet, and the water runs clear again. Suspension and deposition models of different materials are never considered by those who deny the flood. They see a rushing, muddy, debris filled torrent on the evening news and immediately assign the same dynamics to the flood. It just didn't happen that way.

Many believe the ark would have broken apart and sunk it under it's own weight and size. But the fact is that if you don't want something to collapse under it's own weight and size you float it in water.

Ummm, no. Floating large wooden object in water is not a wise idea. You run afoul of the Square/Cube law. The largest wooden ship ever made needed modern reinforcement and powered pumps to be safe in even relatively calm water. It sank in a storm that would have been like a sun shower compared to what was needed for the Ark story:

Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia

And the reason that water "runs clear" rapidly is because you are not looking at the same water. The muddy water has moved down stream. Aron Ra has done an excellent series on YouTube debunking the Flood myth. I suggest that you watch it.

 

[HitchSlap]

LOL @ the idea of a 'slow moving' flood, but fast enough where someone couldn't have built a raft.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ummm, no. Floating large wooden object in water is not a wise idea. You run afoul of the Square/Cube law. The largest wooden ship ever made needed modern reinforcement and powered pumps to be safe in even relatively calm water. It sank in a storm that would have been like a sun shower compared to what was needed for the Ark story:

Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia

And the reason that water "runs clear" rapidly is because you are not looking at the same water. The muddy water has moved down stream. Aron Ra has done an excellent series on YouTube debunking the Flood myth. I suggest that you watch it.

The Wyoming vs Ark is apples vs oranges. No comparison.

Regards the stream bottom, the silt isn't washed downstream but settles immediately back to the streambed. This is because the water flows more slowly due to friction at the bottom and isn't fast enough to hold even fine particles in suspension.

Regards the flood, at a certain depth the water at the bottom where erosion would take place is barely moving if at all. Velocity is greatest at the surface due to the reduced friction and slowest at the bottom where friction is greatest.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

LOL @ the idea of a 'slow moving' flood, but fast enough where someone couldn't have built a raft.

I guess one would have to think about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Wyoming vs Ark is apples vs oranges. No comparison.

Regards the stream bottom, the silt isn't washed downstream but settles immediately back to the streambed. This is because the water flows more slowly due to friction at the bottom and isn't fast enough to hold even fine particles in suspension.

Regards the flood, at a certain depth the water at the bottom where erosion would take place is barely moving if at all. Velocity is greatest at the surface due to the reduced friction and slowest at the bottom where friction is greatest.

Yes, the Wyoming would have been far more seaworthy. As for the rest, no, just no.

 

[HitchSlap]

I guess one would have to think about it.

BTW, can you identify at which geological layer the flood occurred?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

BTW, can you identify at which geological layer the flood occurred?

It occurred at the top, but I can't identify it as it has been degraded over time.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, the Wyoming would have been far more seaworthy. As for the rest, no, just no.

I'm surprised that you don't know this stuff.

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/152.mf1i.spring02/RiverViscosity.pdf

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm surprised that you don't know this stuff.

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/152.mf1i.spring02/RiverViscosity.pdf

That does not support your views.