• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Fun with the Flood math.

Frumious Bandersnatch

Contributor
Mar 4, 2003
6,390
334
79
Visit site
✟30,931.00
Faith
Unitarian
TrueCreation said:
--Because, just maybe, it could be correct.

--Because then I would have to ignore the geologic data.

--150 years ago, runaway subduction could never have been hypothesized either with what we know about mineral physics.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
You and all YECs are already ignoring all the geologic data that falsify the worldwide flood as has been pointed out several times.

http://www.christianforums.com/t41209&page=1

http://www.christianforums.com/t36392

http://www.christianforums.com/t36270

http://www.christianforums.com/t36254

http://christianforums.com/t50735

http://christianforums.com/t50900

http://christianforums.com/t52191

Of course you are also ignoring paleontology and many other falsifications of the worldwide flood.

Thinking that some modern method of earth study is going to somehow rescue this long falsified myth is no more logical than thinking that modern chemistry will somehow come up with a method to resurrect phlogiston as the cause of combustion.

The frumious Bandersnatch
 
Upvote 0

Frumious Bandersnatch

Contributor
Mar 4, 2003
6,390
334
79
Visit site
✟30,931.00
Faith
Unitarian
Have you read the article??? They clearly describe the several different YEC claims as to what is flood and post flood. Then there is this.

"This is because the uniformitarian rock column emphasis is on evolutionary biology"
The geologic column was of course developed independantly of evolution and this is just nonsense.

Then there is this.
Do you really think there are places all over the world where there is are only "high energy" flood deposits underlying only "low energy" post flood deposits? Here is a link to Glenn Morton's page on the geologic column in North Dakota.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

Can you use Froede and Reed's method to tell us where the flood layers start and stop here? One would think that the black shale just above the Cambrian must be a low energy deposit. Shales are fine grained and require long "uniformitarian" time to settle out. Now all you have to do is figure out how about 14,000 feet of geologic column including all those Mississippian crinoids and the various thick salt layers got deposited post flood.

The frumious Bandersnatch
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
hey, I had a good idea about phlogiston






err... no I didn't.
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
42
Visit site
✟36,317.00
Faith
Taoist
Others seem to be covering everything else, so I thought I would cover this.

The importance of literal scripture supporting your ideas is the basis of creationism. You are assuming a global flood because you are taking the scripture literally.

Since creationism is so stuck on taking scripture literally, we must make sure they do this at every turn, to do otherwise would break the very basis of many creationist organizations (the basis being that the bible is the literal inerrant god breathed truth).

To deviate from it to much would be to add to that scripture and not take it literal anymore.


So lets look at your references.

"fountains of the great deep"
For the activity you are describing, this seems like a very short explination. The activity would be at least as horrible as the rain. Yet the rain gets much more book time than the fountains. In a book that goes down to the detail of god closing the ark doors, you would assume they would have written a bit more about all of this activity.

"Psalm 104: 7-10"
Looking at the psalms we see they have nothing to do with your hypothesis.

**
"Psa 104:6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
**
Psa 104:7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
**
Psa 104:8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them."​

The Psalms are talking about the Water. Not the mountains going up or down but the water. At gods command they receded, they fled.


 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
42
Visit site
✟36,317.00
Faith
Taoist
Nope. You have two statements:

1) God did it.

2) Venus disapeared.

They are disconnected and each needs to be falsified. The first one cannot be falsified, the second one can.


Just like in the statement,
"God created a global flood approx 4500 years ago."

1) God created. (Unfalsifiable)

2) Global flood approx 4500 years ago. (falsifiable)


 
Upvote 0

Risen Tree

previously Rising Tree
Nov 20, 2002
6,988
328
Georgia
✟25,882.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Here is another way to look at this. Assume that 5 miles of rainwater covers the earth during the flood. The amount of rainfall that comes from a rainstorm is IIRC the ratio of volume per surface, which reduces to linear distance. So the rate of rainfall, measured as distance per time, is 5 miles in 40 days. This converts to 330 inches per hour.* To compare, the most violent storms on the planet can dump almost an inch per hour. This may sound weak, but remember that any rainfall of about 3 inches or more in one day is guaranteed to cause flash-flooding in relatively flat urban areas.

So in other words, the rainstorm was 330 times as violent as the worst storms of our day. YECs at this point may counter that the atmosphere was structured differently than it is now. OK. If it was a stable atmosphere incapable of producing rain, then how did it magically produce a global thunderstorm 330X as intense as our worst thunderstorms of our day? But let's assume that the atmosphere was capable of it. If so, the height of the clouds would be absolutely unfathomable.



This graphic from aerospaceweb.org shows the temperature structure of the current atmosphere. The staggered line illustrates the stability of differing layers of the atmosphere. Note that the air is warmer in the lower part of the troposphere, making it unstable; by contrast, the temperature of the stable stratosphere increases with height. This is why all meteorological events occur below the tropapause.

Now, in order for the massive clouds needed for our 330 in/h rain to form, the tropapause must be enormously high. Regardless of what scale you use, there is not nearly enough atmosphere to work with. If you use a linear scale, the tropopause extends out to 3300 km, which is approximately 30 times past the generally accepted upper limit of the atmosphere. If you use a more realistic scale based on the fact that the upper atmosphere is much less dense, you might use a square root scale, which places the cloudtops at 1.09e6 km, nearly 3 times further than the distance from Earth to the moon.

Let's assume that the 3300 km cloudtop model is the correct one. There are so many physical and meteorological problems with it that I don't have time to get into them all. First and foremost, most of the clouds would be in outer space and would vaporize before they ever got a chance to form. Secondly is the amount of energy needed to create clouds this high; most of this energy would dissipate into outer space, requiring even bigger clouds that might have reached who knows how much higher up. But even if all these elements somehow came into place, there remains yet another problem. The spin of Earth's rotation would cause the storm to eventually be torn apart unless it was constantly reseeded in outer space, much like the continuous reseeding of a hurricane. Unfortunately, outer space doesn't have this, and as far as I know, there is zero evidence from any source to indicate that an insurmountable amount of water came surging toward Earth from outer space.

Now unless someone has some evidence to refute all of this, I'm seriously starting to consider that it is not only YEC but Noah's Flood that is an literary allegory.

* -- 5mi/40days * 5280 ft/mi * 12 in/ft * 1 day/24 hr = 330 in/hr
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
42
Visit site
✟36,317.00
Faith
Taoist
Very interesting, thanks for the info.

One thing to mention about Modern YEC, is that it basically stands on the foundation of the global flood being literal. It is used as an escuse for so many things that without it, most of their arguments fall apart, such as radiometric dating being flawed, etc.
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
42
Visit site
✟36,317.00
Faith
Taoist
Yes, you believe its litteral, but creationism says its science, and in science there needs to be more than a belief that ones right. For example, the distortion of radiometric dating, you can *believe* it was distorted all you want, but without evidence to back up the claim, its not much in science. Just like you can *believe* the earth is flat, or spherical, or doughnut shape, but its the evidence that supports and falsifies your belief thats important in science.

So, while you can believe that the global flood happend all you want, which is fine, the problem is when groups start claiming that science shows it happend, as that is just not true.

Alessandro said:
We Trust it is literal. But this disagreement in views is not the biggest issue, there is something else that is the basis for the rest of one's existense.
 
Upvote 0

TrueCreation

God Bless Peer Review
Sep 25, 2003
521
6
39
Riverview, Florida
Visit site
✟23,208.00
Faith
Christian
--Only applicable if we assume that eustasy is only a function of rainfall and not isostatic balancing during a phase of runaway subduction.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
 
Upvote 0

JGMEERT

Just say NO to YEC'ism
May 13, 2002
450
18
Gainesville
Visit site
✟665.00
Faith
Christian
TrueCreation said:
--and not isostatic balancing during a phase of runaway subduction.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
JM: Yes, it's very easy to invent scenarios for which you have no evidence! You are quite enamored with CPT, but have so far failed to accept the young earth corrolary attached to CPT of Baumgardner. What you are doing is building a house made of (imaginary) cards. You can't continue to pile up assertions on a premise for which there is no physical evidence. If you want to accept CPT in the time frame proposed by Baumgardner AND couple it to an old earth, you've got a lot to explain. If you want to adopt CPT and a young earth, you've got even more to explain. However, the first thing is to provide some evidence in support of the model. So far, there is none! In fact, there is not even much in the way of predicting what we should observe in CPT! Do us all a favor, don't answer questions by building upon unsupported propositions, it's really kind of a time waste! Work on your model. Refine it, offer some tests of the model. Once you've built evidence for your model, you can use it to answer questions like these.

Cheers

Joe Meert
 
Upvote 0

Risen Tree

previously Rising Tree
Nov 20, 2002
6,988
328
Georgia
✟25,882.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
TrueCreation said:
--Only applicable if we assume that eustasy is only a function of rainfall and not isostatic balancing during a phase of runaway subduction.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
This sounds like rain to me.
 
Upvote 0

JGMEERT

Just say NO to YEC'ism
May 13, 2002
450
18
Gainesville
Visit site
✟665.00
Faith
Christian
Sheseala said:
Not just where it went, what it did. If there were 17,000 feet of water, the stress on the ground would be 530.4 tons per square foot. *squish*
JM: TEchnically speaking, that's not really a big deal. Static stress is defined as

pgh (p=density, g=gravitational acceleration, h=height).

Assuming 5200 meters of water (~17,000 feet), the stress is only 5.2 x 10[sup]7[/sup] Pascals. Compare that value to the stress placed on the base of an oceanic lithosphere 50 kilometers thick. That's 1.4 x 10[sup]9[/sup] Pascals. In essence, the stress due to the water column is trivial compared to the overlying rock. Now, there are certainly OTHER problems associated with the flood, but stress is not all that important.

Cheers

Joe Meert
 
Upvote 0