Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Water covering the earth
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

krobbyzw
New Member

3 Posts

Posted - 03/24/2010 :  22:55:02  Show Profile Send krobbyzw a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hi folks, I wanted to check with you on the Genesis Flood theory mentioned in this forum. The formula used to calculate the amount of water needed to cover the earth included covering Mount Everest.

In my research of the creation story, creationists say that God raised up the mountains AFTER the flood occurred, and that all the water needed to cover the earth at the moment is here right now. Are there any historically accurate references to what the land distribution looked like about 4400 years ago? In my research, people back then still thought the earth was flat, you coul dfll off the edge, and the sun went around it etc, so not much historically accurate stuff.

I like what I've seen so far of how you've contructed your website! Well done!

[Moved to the Creation/Evolution folder - Dave W.]

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15821 Posts

Posted - 03/24/2010 :  23:12:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by krobbyzw

Hi folks, I wanted to check with you on the Genesis Flood theory mentioned in this forum. The formula used to calculate the amount of water needed to cover the earth included covering Mount Everest.

In my research of the creation story, creationists say that God raised up the mountains AFTER the flood occurred, and that all the water needed to cover the earth at the moment is here right now. Are there any historically accurate references to what the land distribution looked like about 4400 years ago? In my research, people back then still thought the earth was flat, you coul dfll off the edge, and the sun went around it etc, so not much historically accurate stuff.

I like what I've seen so far of how you've contructed your website! Well done!
Greetings and welcome to Skeptic Friends Network, krobbyzw!

I'm no geographical or geological expert, but I think that around 4990 BCE (a common YEC guesstimate date for "The Flood") the earth was very much like it is today. Certainly some shorelines were different, I know that the western shore of Taiwan extends considerably further west than it used to even in 1660, and a town or two in England has been swallowed up by the ocean since Medieval times. But overall, a glance from space at the daytime globe of 5000 years ago should probably not look noticeably different from what people in the ISS can see today.

That talk of the mountains "rising up" at magical hyper-speed is charming, isn't it? Like a child's attempts to make up lies to cover another lie, that just makes the YECs looks dumber, and is insulting to the intelligence of those who hear them say it.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/25/2010 02:21:55
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25013 Posts

Posted - 03/25/2010 :  01:46:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Genesis 7:18-20 shoots down the idea that the Earth had no mountains before the Flood:
The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. (NIV)

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2607 Posts

Posted - 03/25/2010 :  04:05:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Welcome krobbyzw.
Inquiring minds want to know. So where is all that water????
creationists say that God raised up the mountains AFTER the flood occurred, and that all the water needed to cover the earth at the moment is here right now
There making that up, with their grasp of reallity they know to believe in the "great Bible flood" there is some missing water. You might think it's not right to make things up and sell them as truths. That's what the Bible is, made up and sold as truth. Believers of the Bible take that lead and run with it.
Holy Shit! God just whispered in my ear. He said,,,,, "I WAS THIRSTY"
Praise Jesus, I know! God got thirsty and took a sip.
krobbyzw, If you want to do research that is outside of reality, your right to include the Bible as a reference. Here is a simple rule, "If you want to stay in touch with reality, keep the bible out". It seems your trying to do both. Research that's in reality and reference the Bible. Like a pig with little wings, it's not going to work. SS

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 03/25/2010 :  04:16:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Here's the math:

"Date: 09-02-99 10:11
From: Marty Leipzig

Hey, Georgie. The cretinists at the ICR, AIG, CRC and a half-dozen other fundy-run
shill organizations absolutely insist on the Flood of Noah being global (meaning
ALL the world, to your limited deference). To them, your claim that it was local
makes you the infidel.

Shocking. When you're obviously nothing more than a nescient schmuck.

Hell, I'm just taking what they claim and agreeing it to death.

Viz:

First - the global flood supposedly (Scripturally) covered the planet, (see that,
George? If so, why are you still being so stupid?) and Mount Everest is 8,848
meters tall. The diameter of the Earth at the equator, on the other hand, is
12,756.8 km. All we have to do is calculate the volume of water to fill a sphere
with a radius of the Earth plus Mount Everest; then we subtract the volume of a
sphere with a radius of the Earth. Now, I know this won't yield a perfect result,
because the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, but it will serve to give a general idea
about the amounts involved.

So, here are the calculations:

First, Everest:

V = 4/3pir3
= 4/3pi6387.248 km3
= 1.091511012 km3
Now, the Earth at sea level:

V = 4/3pir3
= 4/3pi6378.4 km3
= 1.086981012 km3
The difference between these two figures is the amount of water needed to just
cover the Earth: 4.525109 Or, to put into a more sensible number,
4,525,000,000,000 cubic kilometres. This is one helluva lot of water.

For those who think it might come from the polar ice caps, please don't forget
that water is more dense than ice, and thus that the volume of ice present in
those ice caps would have to be more than the volume of water necessary.

Some interesting physical effects of all that water, too. How much weight do you
think that is? Well, water at STP weighs in at 1 gram/cubic centimetre (by
definition), so:

4.525109 km3 of water,
109 (cubic meters in a cubic kilometer),
106 (cubic centimetres in a cubic meter),
1 g/cm3 (denisty of water),
10-3 (kilograms),
(turn the crank)
equals 4.5251021 kg
Ever wonder what the effects of that much weight would be? Well, many times in
the near past (i.e., the Pleistocene), continental ice sheets covered many of
the northern states and most all of Canada. For the sake of argument, let's say
the area covered by the Wisconsinian advance (the latest and greatest) was
10,000,000,000 (ten million) km2, by an average thickness of 1 km of ice
(a good estimate... it was thicker in some areas [the zones of accumulation]
and much thinner elsewhere [at the ablating edges]).

Now, 1.00107 km2 times 1 km thickness equals 1.00107 km3 of ice.

Now, remember earlier that we noted that it would take 4.525109 km3 of
water for the Flood? Well, looking at the Wisconsinian glaciation, all that ice
(which is frozen water, remember?) would be precisely 0.222% [...do the math]
(that's zero decimal two hundred twenty two thousandths) percent of the water
needed for the flood.

Well, the Wisconsinian glacial stade ended about 25,000 YBP (years before present),
as compared for the approximately supposedly 4,000 YBP flood event.

Due to these late Pleistocene glaciations (some 21,000 years preceding the supposed
flood), the mass of the ice has actually depressed the crust of the Earth. That
crust, now that the ice is gone, is slowly rising (called glacial rebound); and
this rebound can be measured, in places (like northern Wisconsin), in centimetres-
per-year. Sea level was also lowered some tens of meters due to the very finite
amount of water in the Earth's hydrosphere being locked up in glacial ice sheets
(geologists call this glacioeustacy).

Now, glacial rebound can only be measured, obviously, in glaciated terranes, i.e.,
the Sahara is not rebounding as it was not glaciated during the Pleistocene. This
lack of rebound is noted by laser ranged interferometery and satellite geodesy [so
there], as well as by geomorphology. Glacial striae on bedrock, eskers, tills,
moraines, rouche moutenees, drumlins, kame and kettle topography, fjords, deranged
fluvial drainage and erratic blocks all betray a glacier's passage. Needless to say,
these geomorphological expressions are not found everywhere on Earth (for instance,
like the Sahara). Therefore, although extensive, the glaciers were a local (not
global) is scale. Yet, at only 0.222% the size of the supposed flood, they have had
a PROFOUND and EASILY recognisable and measurable effects on the lands.

Yet, the supposed flood of Noah, supposedly global in extent, supposedly much more
recent, and supposedly orders of magnitude larger in scale; has exactly zero
measurable effects and zero evidence for it's occurrence.

Golly, Wally. I wonder why that may be...?

Further, Mount Everest extends through 2/3 of the Earth's atmosphere. Since two
forms of matter can't occupy the same space, we have an additional problem with the
atmosphere. Its current boundary marks the point at which gasses of the atmosphere
can escape the Earth's gravitational field. Even allowing for partial dissolving of
the atmosphere into our huge ocean, we'd lose the vast majority of our atmosphere
as it is raised some 5.155 km higher by the rising flood waters; and it boils off
into space.

Yet, we still have a quite thick and nicely breathable atmosphere. In fact, ice
cores from Antarctica (as well as deep-sea sediment cores) which can be
geochemically tested for paleoatmospheric constituents and relative gas ratios; and
these records extend well back into the Pleistocene, far more than the supposed
4,000 YBP flood event. Strange that this major loss of atmosphere, atmospheric
fractionation (lighter gasses - oxygen, nitrogen, fluorine, neon, etc. - would
have boiled off first in the flood-water rising scenario, enriching what remained
with heavier gasses - argon, krypton, xenon, radon, etc.), and massive
extinctions from such global upheavals are totally unevidenced in these cores.

Even further, let us take a realistic and dispassionate look at the other claims
relating to global flooding and other such biblical nonsense.

Particularly, in order to flood the Earth to the Genesis requisite depth of 10
cubits (~15' or 5 m.) above the summit of Mt. Ararat (16,900' or 5,151 m AMSL), it
would obviously require a water depth of 16,915' (5,155.7 m), or over three miles
above mean sea level. In order to accomplish this little task, it would require
the previously noted additional 4.525109 km3 of water to flood the Earth to this
depth. The Earth's present hydrosphere (the sum total of all waters in, on and
above the Earth) totals only 1.37109 km3. Where would this additional
4.525109 km3 of water come from? It cannot come from water vapour (i.e., clouds)
because the atmospheric pressure would be 840 times greater than standard pressure
of the atmosphere today. Further, the latent heat released when the vapour
condenses into liquid water would be enough to raise the temperature of the
Earth's atmosphere to approximately 3,570 C (6,460 F).

Someone, who shall properly remain anonymous, suggested that all the water needed
to flood the Earth existed as liquid water surrounding the globe (i.e., a "vapour
canopy"). This, of course, is staggeringly stupid. What is keeping that much water
from falling to the Earth? There is a little property called gravity that would
cause it to fall.

Let's look into that from a physical standpoint. To flood the Earth, we have
already seen that it would require 4.525109 km3 of water with a mass of
4.5251021 kg. When this amount of water is floating about the Earth's
surface, it stored an enormous amount of potential energy, which is converted to
kinetic energy when it falls, which, in turn, is converted to heat upon impact
with the Earth. The amount of heat released is immense:

Potential energy: E=MgH, where
M = mass of water,
g = gravitational constant and,
H = height of water above surface.
Now, going with the Genesis version of the Noachian Deluge as lasting 40 days and
nights, the amount of mass falling to Earth each day is 4.5251021 kg/40 24-hr.
periods. This equals 1.106751020 kilograms daily. Using H as 10 miles (16,000
meters), the energy released each day is 1.735841025 joules. The amount of energy
the Earth would have to radiate per m2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the
Earth times number of seconds in one day. That is:

e = 1.7353841025/(43.14159((63862)86,400))
e = 391,935.0958 j/m2/s
Currently, the Earth radiates energy at the rate of approximately 215 joules/m2/sec
and the average temperature is 280 K. Using the Stefan-Boltzman 4th-Power Law to
calculate the increase in temperature:

E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T4 (normal)

E (normal) = 215
E (increase) = 391,935.0958
T (normal) = 280.

Turn the crank, and T (increase) equals 1,800 K.
The temperature would thusly rise 1,800 K, or 1,526.84 C (that's 2,780.33 F...
lead melts at 880 F...). It would be highly unlikely that anything short of fused
quartz would survive such an onslaught. Also, the water level would have to rise
at an average rate of 5.5 inches/min; and in 13 minutes would be in excess of six
feet deep.

Finally, at 1800 K water would not exist as liquid.

It is quite clear that a Biblical Flood is and was quite impossible. Only fools
and those shackled by dogma would insist otherwise."


Interesting, no?




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15821 Posts

Posted - 03/25/2010 :  06:50:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I really think it's tactically a good idea to know the Holey Babble, its creation myths, and the Flood story better than the average fundy does. It's kind of fun to beat them intellectually a pulp on their own turf. Filthy's Flood article (linked in the post above) is a great source for the problem of Noah, the Ark, and the Flood.

No, no skeptic should be required to trek into their mythological Never-Never-Land to show fundies the obvious silliness and inconsistencies of their myths. It's perfectly legitimate to force them to try to disprove science, history and rationality.

But I think the flexibility of being able to engage them in combat in all terrains shows a certain dash that may even impress the rubes that are watching the fight. Fundies are very often not only seriously ignorant of science, but, amazingly, of their own sacred scripture as well. And it's fun, too. There's just so much in the Bible that's easy -- and hilarious -- to disassemble.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9463 Posts

Posted - 03/27/2010 :  06:27:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
First off: hello and welcome!

Originally posted by krobbyzw
In my research of the creation story, creationists say that God raised up the mountains AFTER the flood occurred, and that all the water needed to cover the earth at the moment is here right now.
Have you had the opportunity to ask them what chapter-and-verse says so? And have you had them explain to you how they reach this conclusion?

The thing is, I have a have a hard time recalling any creationist I've met who were truly honest. Usually they have a preconceived notion of how things went down, but rarely are those ideas firmly anchored in their holy scripture. Especially when it comes to Old Testament stuff.


Are there any historically accurate references to what the land distribution looked like about 4400 years ago? In my research, people back then still thought the earth was flat, you coul dfll off the edge, and the sun went around it etc, so not much historically accurate stuff.
The place to go researching should be India. Historical documents from there should be available, and there you have the proximity to Mt. Everest. Israel and Egypt did not exist in a vacuum until India was discovered, and India surely must have some old stories which refer to Himalaya.


I like what I've seen so far of how you've contructed your website! Well done!
Thank you. We are quite proud of it.


Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 03/27/2010 14:46:46
Go to Top of Page

ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf

USA
1134 Posts

Posted - 03/27/2010 :  12:57:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ThorGoLucky's Homepage Send ThorGoLucky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hi krobbyzw, for one thing, the flood story does not qualify as a theory. A theory is a unifying framework of facts, hypotheses and other theories.

A fun thing to ask of believers of the Genesis flood is if the flood waters were fresh or salt water. Either way, the ark would've needed an unrealistically-large aquarium too!
Edited by - ThorGoLucky on 03/28/2010 00:06:01
Go to Top of Page

Randy
SFN Regular

USA
1974 Posts

Posted - 03/27/2010 :  13:31:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Randy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth

Hello to you, krobbyzw. Thought you'd might be interested in looking over the above links. Notice there's few hundred, give or take, flood myths in human history, many predating the bible flood myth. It's as if you can't have a religion without your very own flood story; sort of like "Keeping up with the Joneses" type deal. Same with resurrection/miracle myths. When you step back and look at the big picture, I'd say the writers of most religious doctrine did a lot of 'borrowing'.

"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."

"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Go to Top of Page

Chippewa
SFN Regular

USA
1496 Posts

Posted - 03/27/2010 :  14:18:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Chippewa's Homepage Send Chippewa a Private Message  Reply with Quote
There is some evidence to support the theory of William Ryan and Walter Pitman of Columbia University that a massive flood, increasing the size of the Black Sea took place approximately 5600 BC or 7,600 years ago.

It has been hypothesized also that the encroachment of waters on primitive populated areas might not have been sudden but gradual given the depth of the already existing Black Sea. Tribal peoples may have seen their "world" flooded over time by seemingly unstoppable waters, either sudden or slow. Nevertheless, whether sudden or gradual, a rise in sea levels, eventually covering many kilometers may be the origin of flood legends past down over generations that predate the Bible.

Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.

"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.)
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15821 Posts

Posted - 03/28/2010 :  00:45:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Chippewa

There is some evidence to support the theory of William Ryan and Walter Pitman of Columbia University that a massive flood, increasing the size of the Black Sea took place approximately 5600 BC or 7,600 years ago.

It has been hypothesized also that the encroachment of waters on primitive populated areas might not have been sudden but gradual given the depth of the already existing Black Sea. Tribal peoples may have seen their "world" flooded over time by seemingly unstoppable waters, either sudden or slow. Nevertheless, whether sudden or gradual, a rise in sea levels, eventually covering many kilometers may be the origin of flood legends past down over generations that predate the Bible.
It's very highly speculative of me to suggest this, but it might be that the flooding of the Black Sea basin caused the dispersal (or the beginning of the dispersal) of people speaking Proto-Indo-European.

The lowlands around the shores of the sub-sea-level "Uxine lake" that existed there might be in just about the right place to fit most of the PIE Urheimat models. But most dating estimates for the "earliest common ancestor" of the Indo-European languages are a bit late to fit that conjecture. (I Am Not A Linguist.)

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/28/2010 01:23:56
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.61 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000