Fun with the Flood math.

So, let us assume that there were not mountains in the days of the flood. The bible says that the waters were 15 cubits deep (roughly 20 some feet) above the "hills". If this is the case, how could that little amount of water kill everything, bury everything several hundred feet deep and create sedimentary rock layers several hundred feet thick. It doesn't even sound like it could cover the tallest tree.

I think that the estimates for the amount of water that sprang forth from the deep or that came from on high that creationists use are an OVER estimate. The amount needed to do the amount of damage they account to the flood would hardly seem to be capable with only 15 cubits deep water.

How could this amount of water suspend all of the sediment that is suppose to be acounted for by the flood?

Where dose the bible say that the waters were 15 cubic feet?
I reccomend that you take a look at answersingenesis.org
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp

Today at 09:19 PM Jon said this in Post #82

Where dose the bible say that the waters were 15 cubic feet?
I reccomend that you take a look at answersingenesis.org
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp

Click to expand...

Genesis 7:20
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Fifteen cubits deep, not 15 cubic feet.

It seems that there are two options

1) There were no high mountains like Everest at the time of the flood, which gives YEC the ability to say that there wasn't a lot of water needed, but the bible says that the water was 15 cubits above the hills, so if the hills weren't that high, then there would not be enough water to suspend all of the sediment and do the damage and cause the features supposedly caused by the flood

2) The mountains where high, which would then give the YEC's enough water to do the supposed damage, but then the problem becomes, where did the water come from to cover the high mountains, and then where did it go.

18th March 2003 at 08:38 AM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #73




The are some problems with using this water for a global flood.  First, according to the paper this water  is only 0.1% by weight of the material of the transistion zone.  If you bring up 1000 times as much hot rock at 1800 F as water it should be obvious that to get any significant amount of water you must completely cover the earth with molten lava. 

Click to expand...

I see your logic here. But to bring up this water does not mean you have to bring up the same amount of molten lava too. If this is so, I would like to see the figures on it explaining how and why. 

Suppose it did come out. How did it get back down  to 400 miles below the earth after the flood???

Click to expand...

The same way it got there in the first place. Though no one may know how it got there, science says it's there. So I imagine it got placed back there in the same manner.

The killer here is that even if it comes out without the rest of the hot mineral it will cook the earth to death.  The atmosphere weighs about 5 x 10^21 grams. The surface of the earth is about 5 x 10^18 square cm.  A cubic centimeter of liquid water weighs 1 gram.   Thus 10 meters (1000 cm) of global rain will weigh as much as the entire atmosphere.  Further the heat capacity (ability to absorb heat) of atmospheric gases averages much less that that of water.

Now think about releasing water at 1800 F amounting to many times the mass of the air into the air from these fountains of the deep. The final temperature will be somewhat below 1800 F because the steam will use up some energy as it expands due to reduced pressure on the surface but the final result will still be an atmosphere of high pressure steam probably well above 1000 F. 

I don't think there ever will be much liquid water. I think the temperature will always be above the point at which water could condense from steam at any pressure.  The temperature would have to drop all the way down to about 700 F before any liquid water could form and I don't think it would if very much of this water was released from the "fountains of the deep".

Click to expand...

Well let's see. The temp of current water is not factored in. How cold water "is" at the bottom of some very deep oceans. Then we have the North and South poles and their ice. How much water does it take to heat 988,042,974 Cubic Miles of water to 1000 f? And considering there was no Sun shining for those forty days and nights, the earth itself would have been cooling off. When steam gets into our upper atmosphere it is cooled buy it. Then it condenses and falls back to the earth cooling the air as it falls. Much like how freon works in your A.C.. Now the upper atmosphere had to be real cold because of no Sun to warm it. So you have heat from the fountains of the deep being cooled by ocean waters, the steam being cooled by the very cold upper atmosphere then returning to earth cooling the air on the way back down. Sounds like more than enough to keep things cool. Need to factor all things in, or you get the wrong answer. 

Fortunately for us this has never happened. [/color]

Click to expand...

Wrong again!

The Frumious Bandersnatch 

Click to expand...

[/color]

Just a lil question y can't it be a local flood of the known world? instead of the whole world? the whole world wasn't populated at this time so it would b a lil bit of overkill!

Considering how water flows, was there a dam of some sort to hold this water to flood only the populated part? What was this dam made of? How big was it? Where the evidence for it? I'd like to know since you suggested it only flooded one part. A dam seems to be the only thing that supports your theory. Less you have another?

Hi all!

I'd like to recycle an old post & throw in my $0.02 if I may.

Genesis 7:6 tells us that:

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Click to expand...

.

Genesis 8:14-16 tell us that:

And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dried. And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dry. And God spoke unto Noah, saying: 'Go forth from the ark, you, and your wife, and your sons, and your sons' wives with you.

Click to expand...

Thus, Noah & family were in the ark for just over one year.

Genesis 9:28-29 tells us that:

And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died.

Click to expand...

Something doesn't jibe. Noah was 600 when the flood started. He was in the ark for (just over) one year. He lived 350 years after the flood & died at the ripe old age of 950. What happened to the year he was in the ark? One of my rabbis writes that:

The arithmetic of Noah's years (600 before + 350 after = 950) seems not to take into account the year of the Flood. There is a good case to be made for not considering the duration of the Flood in calculations of the chronology of the world. We might look at the Flood as a period of "suspended animation" - laws of nature were not in effect; perhaps time as we know it cannot apply to that interval. The animals in the ark did not function in their normal ways.

Click to expand...

This could explain a lot; interesting, no?

Let me also add the following:

About a "literal reading" of the Tanakh. I don't think that any two people could agree on a "literal reading" of, say, Genesis (certainly mine, as an orthodox Jew and based on the original Hebrew, will probably differ in many particulars from that of a fundamentalist Protestant, based on the KJV); such a thing is inherently subjective and based on our own idiosyncrasies, psychological/emotional/spiritual baggage and personal it-seems-to-me's. Thus, we should be very leery of basing beliefs and/or arguments on a "literal reading" of the scriptures. Those who do insist on a strict, narrow, "literal" interpretation of this or that section of scripture are, I believe, forcing it into a literary and spiritual strait-jacket entirely of their own devising that does no justice to the scriptures..

So, that being said, how do I, as an orthodox Jew, view Genesis? Well, of course, I believe that it (and the other 4 books of the Torah: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) is the literal word of God as He revealed it to Moses our Teacher. We believe that the Torah can be understood/appreciated/interpreted on any of four general levels ranging from that which is most in accord with a close reading of the (original Hebrew!!!) text, to the metaphorical, to the most rarefied and esoteric (the grasp of which is waaay beyond most of us). Who is to say which chapter and verse of Genesis is to be best understood or appreciated on which level? Moreover, our Sages say that the Torah is like a diamond with many facets, each with its own brilliance, each offering a different perspective from which to behold the wondrous jewel.

Lastly, I would humbly argue that we are grasping at trees & missing the forest. What is more important, (sterile?) debates over whether Genesis proves/supports or disproves/opposes this or that theory of creation or evolution, or whether the Flood "really occurred", or discussing, studying and seeking to internalize its sublime moral, ethical and spiritual truths (such as befit the word of God)?

Comments?

Be well!

ssv

Hi ssv

I always appreciate your insights.

It seems that there are two options

1) There were no high mountains like Everest at the time of the flood, which gives YEC the ability to say that there wasn't a lot of water needed, but the bible says that the water was 15 cubits above the hills, so if the hills weren't that high, then there would not be enough water to suspend all of the sediment and do the damage and cause the features supposedly caused by the flood

2) The mountains where high, which would then give the YEC's enough water to do the supposed damage, but then the problem becomes, where did the water come from to cover the high mountains, and then where did it go.

Click to expand...

I would say #1:

15 cubits(6.9 meters) at the highest moutain and apparently there is enough water to cover the earth with 1.5 miles(that's correct, right?) of water(if it were flat).

So if there was 1 moutain then that moutain could be 1.4 miles high, or something like that and the rest of the world could be covered with 1.5 miles of water............

 

 

Today at 05:59 AM WALLACE said this in Post #87

Just a lil question y can't it be a local flood of the known world? instead of the whole world? the whole world wasn't populated at this time so it would b a lil bit of overkill!

Click to expand...

Sure it was populated elsewhere besides the Middle East.....

Another 'anglo-saxon' myth.

Today at 11:13 AM Jon said this in Post #92



I would say #1:

15 cubits(6.9 meters) at the highest moutain and apparently there is enough water to cover the earth with 1.5 miles(that's correct, right?) of water(if it were flat).

So if there was 1 moutain then that moutain could be 1.4 miles high, or something like that and the rest of the world could be covered with 1.5 miles of water............

 

 

Click to expand...

So how did the Earth's mountain ranges form in such a short time and why does this  model completely contradict everything we know about modern geology?

I see your logic here. But to bring up this water does not mean you have to bring up the same amount of molten lava too. If this is so, I would like to see the figures on it explaining how and why. 

Click to expand...

You are right Ikester.  You don't need the same amount of molten lava. You need 1000 times as much molten lava. As Arikay says, the water is incorporated in the magma. How do you get the water out from 400 miles below the earth and leave the magma there?

Suppose it did come out. How did it get back down  to 400 miles below the earth after the flood???  

Click to expand...

 
The same way it got there in the first place. Though no one may know how it got there, science says it's there. So I imagine it got placed back there in the same manner.

Click to expand...

I suppose it got there when the earth formed in the first place. You have no realistic mechanism to either get it out or put it back 400 miles below the earth after the flood.

Well let's see. The temp of current water is not factored in. How cold water "is" at the bottom of some very deep oceans. Then we have the North and South poles and their ice. How much water does it take to heat 988,042,974 Cubic Miles of water to 1000 f? And considering there was no Sun shining for those forty days and nights, the earth itself would have been cooling off. When steam gets into our upper atmosphere it is cooled buy it. Then it condenses and falls back to the earth cooling the air as it falls. Much like how freon works in your A.C.. Now the upper atmosphere had to be real cold because of no Sun to warm it. So you have heat from the fountains of the deep being cooled by ocean waters, the steam being cooled by the very cold upper atmosphere then returning to earth cooling the air on the way back down. Sounds like more than enough to keep things cool. Need to factor all things in, or you get the wrong answer.

Click to expand...

If it comes out under the cold oceans and gets cooled down it won't be in the air to fall as rain from the fountains of the deep will it?

If any of it goes into the air it doesn't matter how cold the air is to start with. It only takes about 5 x 10^23 J of heat to heat the entire atmosphere by 100 C. From my steam tables I calculate that this water will have a heat content of over 1000 J/g. By the time you put enough of it in the air to get even a meter of global rain you will heat the entire atmosphere to nearly 100 C and kill all air breathing life.  

It would take about 4 x 10^26 J to heat all the water in the oceans from 0 C to 70 C which would certainly kill all marine life and probably all life. Tell me how deep the water was and I'll tell you how hot the resulting ocean would be.

As I said, this has never happened. If it had we wouldn't be here to argue about it.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Yesterday at 06:46 AM Arikay said this in Post #90

I see your logic here. But to bring up this water does not mean you have to bring up the same amount of molten lava too. If this is so, I would like to see the figures on it explaining how and why.

Because the water is contained inside the mineral. For it to escape the mineral needs to be brought up and the water seperated from it. Bringing up the Lava with the water.

Click to expand...

No, wrong again. The boiling point of the water is raised by the pressure that is there(there has to be enough pressure to raise the boiling point of the water to the tempature at that depth). If you release the pressure just to the point where the water cannot stay liquidfied and turns to steam it would seperate itself from the mineral which is heavier than steam and rise to the suface leaving the mineral behind. Here is a link that will give you a better idea of what I am talking about: http://www.thursdaysclassroom.com/13jul00/boil.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/watvap.html

The same way it got there in the first place. Though no one may know how it got there, science says it's there. So I imagine it got placed back there in the same manner.

Assuming that things just some how fit into your theory isnt really the best way to go about looking at things.

Click to expand...

If you knew the answer to this, I think you would come up with something better than sarcasm.

Well let's see. The temp of current water is not factored in. How cold water "is" at the bottom of some very deep oceans. Then we have the North and South poles and their ice. How much water does it take to heat 988,042,974 Cubic Miles of water to 1000 f? And considering there was no Sun shining for those forty days and nights, the earth itself would have been cooling off. When steam gets into our upper atmosphere it is cooled buy it. Then it condenses and falls back to the earth cooling the air as it falls. Much like how freon works in your A.C.. Now the upper atmosphere had to be real cold because of no Sun to warm it. So you have heat from the fountains of the deep being cooled by ocean waters, the steam being cooled by the very cold upper atmosphere then returning to earth cooling the air on the way back down. Sounds like more than enough to keep things cool. Need to factor all things in, or you get the wrong answer.

Because we dont need to factor any of that in. The amount of heat is generated not by something thats hot, but by all the friction and what not the added water would create.

Click to expand...

Friction? Water against water make friction? Or is it water against air? Explain to me where all this friction you speak of comes from.

A couple things to correct though. In my figures, I had the ice caps melt. Also, the upper atmosphere is Always cold, no matter sun or not. It would have been just as cold then as it is now. The thing is, that if the water reached the very upper atmosphere to cool it, it would then free fall back down and create a lot of pressure as it falls into the thicker atmosphere. With as much water that falled, the pressure would probably super heat the water and you would have supper hot water falling onto the earth.

Click to expand...

So that your theory works anything goes, right?

And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died.

Something doesn't jibe. Noah was 600 when the flood started. He was in the ark for (just over) one year. He lived 350 years after the flood & died at the ripe old age of 950. What happened to the year he was in the ark? One of my rabbis writes that:

The arithmetic of Noah's years (600 before + 350 after = 950) seems not to take into account the year of the Flood. There is a good case to be made for not considering the duration of the Flood in calculations of the chronology of the world. We might look at the Flood as a period of "suspended animation" - laws of nature were not in effect; perhaps time as we know it cannot apply to that interval. The animals in the ark did not function in their normal ways.

Click to expand...

The other thing that has to be put into consideration is: "After the flood" could mean, After the begining of the flood which would account for the year. There is no mention made to what part of the flood, end or begining. Also it could mean after it stop raining which was forty days. God stopped flooding the earth when it stopped raining and the waters from the deep stopped flowing.

Today at 03:35 AM Arikay said this in Post #97

Im not sure your understanding things correctly.

The water isnt held in the mineral like you are thinking. The mineral would need to be converted to magma (lava like stuff, just trying to get my terms right ) and the water to steam for the water to escape.

No, I dont know how it would get back there, and No I dont know how it got there. However saying that it would some how just get put back, is not science, its an assumption.

Friction from water against water, and water against air, and air against air and on and on.
See to move that much water, or mineral, it would require A Lot of energy. The energy would also disapate heat, and so you get super hot water and a super hot earth.

Click to expand...

There are huge fault lines all around this earth that could open and and be big enough to flow the amount of water needed. Lets not forget the water canopy. That's about half the water needed right there. Half the water above(firmament above) and half the water below(firmament below). Not as much energy needed so not much heat produced.