Fun with the Flood math.

[Smilin]

Today at 04:54 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #216



What does your cat have to do with it? This last paragraph shows just how immature and unscientific your reasoning is. And if this is the best you can do than why bother posting?

There are still unanswered questions about the canopy. Do you abandoned something with unanswered questions so easy.

Doesn't science say to research something to it's final outcome no matter where it leads?

I'll answer 'what does a cat have to do with it' question. Back to your ball and string experiment on how the string was the gravity that held the canopy in place around the ball...

I have a video of a cat clinging to a ceiling fan... when he let's go, you observe him being slung across the room, crashing into a wall. Gravity failed to hold him in place. What you see is a demonstration of angular momentum instead.

a few questions:
1. You defend how a canopy could continue to exist until a supposed deluge. Before we put the cart in front of the horse, explain how the canopy was formed?
2. As Frumius pointed out, such a canopy in the presence of solar radiation from the sun would absorp enough energy to collapse towards earth, given the friction of the atmosphere would react violently (huge explosion) and pre-Noah mankind would be crispy critters. You've yet to show how life could exist with an existing canopy.

If you can show me.. I will believe you.

 

[TrueCreation]

and suddenly it's a 'liquid hydrogen canopy'... big difference.

Which was it? solid or liquid?

--There was no vapor canopy. The hypothesis is dated. The only plausible origin for 'flood water' is that already contained in the oceans today. The isostatic balance of oceanic and continental lithospheres, coupled with the effects of downwelling and upwelling mantle convection is IMO, feasible in the light of what would be predicted to occur during runaway subduction and catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT).

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[Arikay]

Wow, old thread.

The only problem is that the ensueing heat of All this activity, would toast everything to a nice crisp. Massive geological activity would create a worse disaster than the flood itself.

--There was no vapor canopy. The hypothesis is dated. The only plausible origin for 'flood water' is that already contained in the oceans today. The isostatic balance of oceanic and continental lithospheres, coupled with the effects of downwelling and upwelling mantle convection is IMO, feasible in the light of what would be predicted to occur during runaway subduction and catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT).

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[TrueCreation]

Wow, old thread.

--Just checking out the archives

The only problem is that the ensueing heat of All this activity, would toast everything to a nice crisp. Massive geological activity would create a worse disaster than the flood itself.[/QUOTE]--So where the water came from isn't at all a dillema? Progress.
--The big heat problem is the transfer of heat from the cooling of the oceanic lithosphere. This paradigm is being discussed in other threads. Its just that the first post of this thread attemptedly showed that any origin of "flood water" is mathematically ridiculous. I think this is quite false on numerous grounds.

Cheers,
--Chris Grose

 

[Arikay]

The problem is, you would have So much heat to transfer, it wouldn't do much good, you would still end up with so much heat that it would toast everyone.
It would also leave lots of evidence behind, yet there is none.

Explain to me how it is false on numerous grounds?

--Just checking out the archives

The only problem is that the ensueing heat of All this activity, would toast everything to a nice crisp. Massive geological activity would create a worse disaster than the flood itself.

--So where the water came from isn't at all a dillema? Progress.
--The big heat problem is the transfer of heat from the cooling of the oceanic lithosphere. This paradigm is being discussed in other threads. Its just that the first post of this thread attemptedly showed that any origin of "flood water" is mathematically ridiculous. I think this is quite false on numerous grounds.

Cheers,
--Chris Grose[/QUOTE]

 

[TrueCreation]

The problem is, you would have So much heat to transfer, it wouldn't do much good, you would still end up with so much heat that it would toast everyone.

--I suspect this is incorrect, but this is being addressed in another thread. You could always contact Nethanial Morgan on your own time, he would surely address this question. Do a google for his number/e-mail if you like.

It would also leave lots of evidence behind, yet there is none.[/Quote]--I'm not about ready to write a textbook on these issues, so I will take things one at a time.

Explain to me how it is false on numerous grounds?

--Well first the obvious. You presume that since the water rose above all the earths geography, Mt. Everest is a good minimum required height. Though according to CPT theory, Mt. Everest and the rest of the Himalayan orogeny was during the course of the catastrophe, and was not a pre-flood mountain range. Most of the rest is a result of this misunderstanding. For example, you take the volume of ocean and ground water and show that this is an insufficient amount of water. Of course then the assertion that '0.4 cubic feet of water per minute per square foot' fell as rain is entirely unneccessary.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[Arikay]

So basically, all the errors are in the assumption that there was no giant plate movement.

For the Entire World to shift like you would need it to, again, it would have fried people by a huge number of magnitude. I believe Frum B did some calculations on this, but I dont have them on hand. This geological disaster would have been so Much greater than the flood that the flood would have paled in comparison. Yet the bible doesn't make much mention of this.

Im curious, can you point to the layers in the geological column that are pre flood, during flood and post flood?

--I suspect this is incorrect, but this is being addressed in another thread. You could always contact Nethanial Morgan on your own time, he would surely address this question. Do a google for his number/e-mail if you like.

It would also leave lots of evidence behind, yet there is none.

--I'm not about ready to write a textbook on these issues, so I will take things one at a time.


--Well first the obvious. You presume that since the water rose above all the earths geography, Mt. Everest is a good minimum required height. Though according to CPT theory, Mt. Everest and the rest of the Himalayan orogeny was during the course of the catastrophe, and was not a pre-flood mountain range. Most of the rest is a result of this misunderstanding. For example, you take the volume of ocean and ground water and show that this is an insufficient amount of water. Of course then the assertion that '0.4 cubic feet of water per minute per square foot' fell as rain is entirely unneccessary.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose[/QUOTE]

 

[TrueCreation]

So basically, all the errors are in the assumption that there was no giant plate movement.

--Something to that effect.

For the Entire World to shift like you would need it to, again, it would have fried people by a huge number of magnitude. I believe Frum B did some calculations on this, but I dont have them on hand.

--Well please get back to me when you do locate them. You might also want to be sure that this heat isn't absorbed into the subducting lithosphere and/or adjacent mantle.

This geological disaster would have been so Much greater than the flood that the flood would have paled in comparison.

--Can we get something more objective than this, or is this just your best guess?

Yet the bible doesn't make much mention of this.

--If I showed you that it did, would you care? Or better yet, would it matter?

Im curious, can you point to the layers in the geological column that are pre flood, during flood and post flood?

--Not quite sure, honestly. I think this article lays out the difficulties with this considerably well:

http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp

In my opinion Cambrian+ is probably 'flood sediment'. Yup and all them fossil forests too. I'm pretty sure that what this is leading to is for another thread though.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[Arikay]

I am curious, where was the water before the flood?

Unless you are saying that the water was in the oceans, then things balanced and flooded the land, then things unbalanced and went back into the ocean.

I shall try to find some heat data.

--Something to that effect.

--Well please get back to me when you do locate them. You might also want to be sure that this heat isn't absorbed into the subducting lithosphere and/or adjacent mantle.

--Can we get something more objective than this, or is this just your best guess?

--If I showed you that it did, would you care? Or better yet, would it matter?

--Not quite sure, honestly. I think this article lays out the difficulties with this considerably well:

http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp

In my opinion Cambrian+ is probably 'flood sediment'. Yup and all them fossil forests too. I'm pretty sure that what this is leading to is for another thread though.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[TrueCreation]

I am curious, where was the water before the flood?

--In the pre-flood oceans.

Unless you are saying that the water was in the oceans, then things balanced and flooded the land, then things unbalanced and went back into the ocean.

--Something like that. The flood water is not the result of rain, but is related to the isostatic balance of the ocean floor. As new oceanic lithosphere was being created at spreading ridges, it would initially be a hot lithosphere and so mid ocean ridges would elevate drematically. Cold downwelling convection at convergent zones and hot upwelling at spreading centers would also have deflected continental and oceanic lithospheres down and up respectively during runaway subduction. Rain or anything else (including glacial melt) is not a significant source by which eustasy will be effected.

I shall try to find some heat data.

--Have fun.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[ThePhoenix]

So the theory is that the strata formed during the flood? Ok, that makes a reproduceable condition we can test. Get a soil mixture that approximates the mixture found in all the strata combined, place it in water, and agitate the water any way you like. See if you can get that soil to form coherent strata. Because, as any child can prove by mixing dozens of colors of sand in water and shaking the jug, layers tend not to form out of water on any basis besides density. In short, you would get exactly what the kid gets with his well shaken rainbow of sand - a relatively homogenous mixture.

 

[Jet Black]

So the theory is that the strata formed during the flood? Ok, that makes a reproduceable condition we can test. Get a soil mixture that approximates the mixture found in all the strata combined, place it in water, and agitate the water any way you like. See if you can get that soil to form coherent strata. Because, as any child can prove by mixing dozens of colors of sand in water and shaking the jug, layers tend not to form out of water on any basis besides density. In short, you would get exactly what the kid gets with his well shaken rainbow of sand - a relatively homogenous mixture.

remember you need things like multiple layers of limestone, multiple layers of coal and so on. And this mixture also needs to preserve things like footprints in the sand layers, and footprints in the coal layers too.
oh, throw some radioactive elements in there and make sure they all sort themselves too.

 

[Arikay]

It is also interesting that aparently there were oceans, then they shrank, then they came back again, with all the movement of the mountains and what not. Dont forget all the volcanous mountains that require HUGE amounts of volcanic activity to be formed, in such a short period of time. Yet there is no evidence in the geological column to suggest this.

Im curious, which parts of the bible suggest a huge tectonic movement?

 

[ThePhoenix]

remember you need things like multiple layers of limestone, multiple layers of coal and so on. And this mixture also needs to preserve things like footprints in the sand layers, and footprints in the coal layers too.
oh, throw some radioactive elements in there and make sure they all sort themselves too.

Oooh forgot that part. Isn't it sad that YEC want creationism to be considered a theory, but every time it makes a prediction the prediction turns out to be nonsense?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I am curious, where was the water before the flood?

Unless you are saying that the water was in the oceans, then things balanced and flooded the land, then things unbalanced and went back into the ocean.

I shall try to find some heat data.

I bumped the thread with the heat calculations.

http://www.christianforums.com/t60449

There are reasons that the problem can't be solved by shooting the oceans into outerspace but we can discuss them there.

The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[TrueCreation]

So the theory is that the strata formed during the flood? Ok, that makes a reproduceable condition we can test. Get a soil mixture that approximates the mixture found in all the strata combined, place it in water, and agitate the water any way you like. See if you can get that soil to form coherent strata. Because, as any child can prove by mixing dozens of colors of sand in water and shaking the jug, layers tend not to form out of water on any basis besides density. In short, you would get exactly what the kid gets with his well shaken rainbow of sand - a relatively homogenous mixture.

--If you think that you can simulate a global tectonic catastrophe in your bathtub, I can't help you.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[TrueCreation]

I bumped the thread with the heat calculations.

http://www.christianforums.com/t60449

There are reasons that the problem can't be solved by shooting the oceans into outerspace but we can discuss them there.

--That isn't the heat we are talking about in this thread. I think arikay is referring to frictional heating and stresses and strains in the lithosphere.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[TrueCreation]

It is also interesting that aparently there were oceans, then they shrank, then they came back again, with all the movement of the mountains and what not. Dont forget all the volcanous mountains that require HUGE amounts of volcanic activity to be formed, in such a short period of time. Yet there is no evidence in the geological column to suggest this.

--So, do you have something more objective than this, or is this just your best guess?

--I have given you a viable answer to where the water came from.

Im curious, which parts of the bible suggest a huge tectonic movement?

--As I asked in post 230, If I showed you that it did, would you care? Or better yet, would it matter?

--I'd still like to see you lay out the heat problem due to orogenesis.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

--That isn't the heat we are talking about in this thread. I think arikay is referring to frictional heating and stresses and strains in the lithosphere.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

Are you referring to the 10[sup]28[/sup] J of heat generated from the gravitational potential energy of the rapidly subducting lithosphere that Baumgardner et al refer to? I don't think shooting the oceans out into space helps with this problem either and that is only a fraction of the heat released by CPT.

The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[TrueCreation]

Are you referring to the 10[sup]28[/sup] J of heat generated from the gravitational potential energy of the rapidly subducting lithosphere that Baumgardner et al refer to? I don't think shooting the oceans out into space helps with this problem either and that is only a fraction of the heat released by CPT.

--Thats what I'm thinking. I'm not so sure about arikay, he seems to be refering to heat required in mountain building. I'm waiting to hear his response, given that there generally are no anomalous heat flux measurements on orogenic zones.

--That heat would be released deep in the mantle surrounding the subducting lithospheric slab and so really isn't a problem as far as I am aware.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose