just occured to me that i should ask you to prove that noah's flood didn't happen yet i would be inundated with data that does not indicate one way or the other what took place.
things like no global flood evidence. well that doesn't wash as we have not dug up the whole world and no one can talk conclusively on that evidence.
also, we do not know if there would be scars, since according to ballard's, ryan's and pittman's research, the geography has changed since that time. said research and change would be backed up by rehwinkel's work.
we can not say it was an ice age, because we have no proof that that was the source of the water. nor can we say that the black sea was thesource of the aryans because those willages are sunk under great depths and there is no proof as to where they came from.
so if you try, provide only credible, non-evolutionist, factual and concise proof that is verifiable independently. i will expect no complaints as this is the requirement, with a few modifications, that some want to place on me. heresay evidence is not allowed as it is non-verifiable and non-scientific. positions taken from cults, false religions, or those communities that reject the Bible are just rubbish and will be rejected in the same manner that the Bible is rejected by some on this forum.
if you can abide by those criteria, then i will listen to what you have to say, if not then don't expect a response from me.
Noah's Flood...
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
-
Guest
Mitanni and Gilgamesh
daybrown,
In your first post in this topic you wrote:
"The earliest copy we have of the Great flood is Gilgamesh, written in Mitanni. But- the Mitanni were a semi nomadic upland horse culture of what is now Northern Iraq. What are *they* doing with a great flood myth unless it was something that their own ancestors witnessed before arriving in Iraq."
I'm curious about the source of your information. I'm aware of fragments of this epic being discovered in Hattusa, modern Bogazkoy, in both Hittite and Hurrian (Mitanni). Andrew George in the 2003 ediition of his translation, "The epic of Gilgamesh : the Babylonian epic poem and other texts in Akkadian and Sumerian" (Penguin Books) does not include a translation of these fragments. He explains in the introduction that while "Hittite is pretty well understood, Hurrian is still barely comprehensible and our understanding of both versions of the Gilgamesh story is badly hampered by their fragmentary state of preservation. Therefore no rendering of them is given here."
Anyway, I'd like to see what your source has to say about the fragments and if a rendering is provided.
According to George in the same book, the oldest copy of a Gilgamesh poem is Sumerian and dates back to about 2000 BC.
Also, I think you're a bit off base intimating that it is strange or peculiar for an upland horse culture to have or be aware of a great flood myth. In the 14th century the Akkadian language was lingua franca of international communications. Correspondance between kingdoms (Hittite, Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian New Kingdom et al.) was done using Akkadian. Communications/letters/treaties were written in cuneiform script. Local scribes were trained in cuneiform writing by rote-learning of lists, vocabularies and literature of the Babylonian scribal tradition. Of literature, Gilgamesh seems to have been a mainstay in the training of scrbes.
So it shouldn't be surprising to find versions, both Babylonian and local, of Gilgamesh. Again if you have a source that has a different point of view, I would like to read it.
Ted
In your first post in this topic you wrote:
"The earliest copy we have of the Great flood is Gilgamesh, written in Mitanni. But- the Mitanni were a semi nomadic upland horse culture of what is now Northern Iraq. What are *they* doing with a great flood myth unless it was something that their own ancestors witnessed before arriving in Iraq."
I'm curious about the source of your information. I'm aware of fragments of this epic being discovered in Hattusa, modern Bogazkoy, in both Hittite and Hurrian (Mitanni). Andrew George in the 2003 ediition of his translation, "The epic of Gilgamesh : the Babylonian epic poem and other texts in Akkadian and Sumerian" (Penguin Books) does not include a translation of these fragments. He explains in the introduction that while "Hittite is pretty well understood, Hurrian is still barely comprehensible and our understanding of both versions of the Gilgamesh story is badly hampered by their fragmentary state of preservation. Therefore no rendering of them is given here."
Anyway, I'd like to see what your source has to say about the fragments and if a rendering is provided.
According to George in the same book, the oldest copy of a Gilgamesh poem is Sumerian and dates back to about 2000 BC.
Also, I think you're a bit off base intimating that it is strange or peculiar for an upland horse culture to have or be aware of a great flood myth. In the 14th century the Akkadian language was lingua franca of international communications. Correspondance between kingdoms (Hittite, Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian New Kingdom et al.) was done using Akkadian. Communications/letters/treaties were written in cuneiform script. Local scribes were trained in cuneiform writing by rote-learning of lists, vocabularies and literature of the Babylonian scribal tradition. Of literature, Gilgamesh seems to have been a mainstay in the training of scrbes.
So it shouldn't be surprising to find versions, both Babylonian and local, of Gilgamesh. Again if you have a source that has a different point of view, I would like to read it.
Ted
-
FreeThinker
Noah's Flood Debate & Evolution
I have just completed reviewing our entire back and forth since I got involved in this thread. In every post I have given a detailed point by point summation of my position. The few times you asked a question I answered again point by point. That includes the ice from space question. I covered that question in my very first post and covered it again in several subsequent posts.
When you have answered my questions your answers have taken one of a few different tracks:
1) You have quoted the bible as if that offered proof. It does not. The question is did Noah's flood occur or not as related by the story in the bible. You cannot cite the story in question as proof that the story in question is true. Surely you understand the logic of my point here.
2) You have played the magical miracle card. When your argument falls apart you invoke magical miracles. As I noted before this is nothing more than a dodge. Especially when you offer no tangible evidence to indicate that a magicle miracle did indeed occur. Show me the proof.
3) On a few occasions you have thrown out names of researchers in answer to questions (mostly addressing the question of the missing post-flood scars) but unfortunately you have included no details of their research, only their names. I have asked you several times to provide a simple synopsis of their work. You have not. How am I to gauge the strength or weakness of their argument armed only with their names? In your very most recent post (Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:42 pm) we finally get a glimmer of their ideas, specifically "the geography has changed since that time." In an earlier post (Wed Feb 22, 2006 2:05 pm) you waved the magical miracle card to answer this question saying: "God changed the geography of the world thus you may not find the scars you are looking for." If Ryan and Pittman, Ballard, Rehwinkle or any others have some physical evidence to back up this notion please share it so it may be critically analyzed (favorably or unfavorably).
In your last post you say:
"things like no global flood evidence. well that doesn't wash as we have not dug up the whole world and no one can talk conclusively on that evidence."
To that my reply is that you don't need to dig up the entire planet to see if it was ever covered by an over 5km depth flood. Such a worldwide flood would have left a layer of marine debris over the whole face of the earth at a depth consistant with the purported date of the flood story in question. Conclusive evidence of the existance or lack of existance of such a layer is easy. Since the marine debris layer left by a worldwide flood would cover the whole of the earth (as related in the Noah's flood story) there would be no need to dig the whole of the earth to determine if such a layer was present. Just dig test pits. Anywhere. If the test pits revealed a consistant layer of marine debris that would argue for a worldwide flood. If such a layer did exist it would have been detected and well documented by geologists, archaeologists, and paleontologists, and others. BTW, no such marine debris layer exists.
As far as evolution entering into the debate it does not even apply here. This is the thread about Noah's flood. True, I did respond to daybrown's remarks concerning Homo Floriensis, which then you commented on my remarks in turn, which then I responded to your remarks... but I am not trying in any way to bring evolution into this debate abouth the truth or fiction of the story of Noah's flood.
When you have answered my questions your answers have taken one of a few different tracks:
1) You have quoted the bible as if that offered proof. It does not. The question is did Noah's flood occur or not as related by the story in the bible. You cannot cite the story in question as proof that the story in question is true. Surely you understand the logic of my point here.
2) You have played the magical miracle card. When your argument falls apart you invoke magical miracles. As I noted before this is nothing more than a dodge. Especially when you offer no tangible evidence to indicate that a magicle miracle did indeed occur. Show me the proof.
3) On a few occasions you have thrown out names of researchers in answer to questions (mostly addressing the question of the missing post-flood scars) but unfortunately you have included no details of their research, only their names. I have asked you several times to provide a simple synopsis of their work. You have not. How am I to gauge the strength or weakness of their argument armed only with their names? In your very most recent post (Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:42 pm) we finally get a glimmer of their ideas, specifically "the geography has changed since that time." In an earlier post (Wed Feb 22, 2006 2:05 pm) you waved the magical miracle card to answer this question saying: "God changed the geography of the world thus you may not find the scars you are looking for." If Ryan and Pittman, Ballard, Rehwinkle or any others have some physical evidence to back up this notion please share it so it may be critically analyzed (favorably or unfavorably).
In your last post you say:
"things like no global flood evidence. well that doesn't wash as we have not dug up the whole world and no one can talk conclusively on that evidence."
To that my reply is that you don't need to dig up the entire planet to see if it was ever covered by an over 5km depth flood. Such a worldwide flood would have left a layer of marine debris over the whole face of the earth at a depth consistant with the purported date of the flood story in question. Conclusive evidence of the existance or lack of existance of such a layer is easy. Since the marine debris layer left by a worldwide flood would cover the whole of the earth (as related in the Noah's flood story) there would be no need to dig the whole of the earth to determine if such a layer was present. Just dig test pits. Anywhere. If the test pits revealed a consistant layer of marine debris that would argue for a worldwide flood. If such a layer did exist it would have been detected and well documented by geologists, archaeologists, and paleontologists, and others. BTW, no such marine debris layer exists.
As far as evolution entering into the debate it does not even apply here. This is the thread about Noah's flood. True, I did respond to daybrown's remarks concerning Homo Floriensis, which then you commented on my remarks in turn, which then I responded to your remarks... but I am not trying in any way to bring evolution into this debate abouth the truth or fiction of the story of Noah's flood.
-
Leona Conner
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:40 am
- Location: Tennessee
-
Guest
---you waved the magical miracle card to answer this question saying----
no it is not the magical miracle card, it is too remind you that God is part of the story and to remove God removes the purpose of the flood. now for more evidence, in another topic it was mentioned that the seas have raised 400ft. the depth doesn't matter but the fact that the waters has risen provides evidence you seek to know about the flood.
if you look at it with both eyes open and an unclosed mind. the evidence is there, you can find it even in secular material but it is well hidden amongst the pet theories and assumptions.
the ice age is one of those theories, yet if you look closely at the biblical record, you will see that it says " the earth was without form and void" the ice age description would fit the original condition of the world as described by the Bible yet the difference lies in the pre-creation period. evolutionists think there was life, not supported by the evidence but that is what they think. the Bible says there was nothing before that time, defiently supported by not only historical records but as all ancient civilizations have a creation story (but no evolutionary tale) but also via the archaeological record.
again, how one applies the evidence and who believes the conclusions, determine the results and so on. i belive that evolutionists, though they discover many wonderful things, use infallible belief in what is fallible and contaminatable, refusing to acknowledge the errors they make for whatever reason.
if one chooses to look for the truth objectively they have a chance onfinding it but since secular man's mind is filled with human thinking it is easy to see why they miss out.
no it is not the magical miracle card, it is too remind you that God is part of the story and to remove God removes the purpose of the flood. now for more evidence, in another topic it was mentioned that the seas have raised 400ft. the depth doesn't matter but the fact that the waters has risen provides evidence you seek to know about the flood.
if you look at it with both eyes open and an unclosed mind. the evidence is there, you can find it even in secular material but it is well hidden amongst the pet theories and assumptions.
the ice age is one of those theories, yet if you look closely at the biblical record, you will see that it says " the earth was without form and void" the ice age description would fit the original condition of the world as described by the Bible yet the difference lies in the pre-creation period. evolutionists think there was life, not supported by the evidence but that is what they think. the Bible says there was nothing before that time, defiently supported by not only historical records but as all ancient civilizations have a creation story (but no evolutionary tale) but also via the archaeological record.
again, how one applies the evidence and who believes the conclusions, determine the results and so on. i belive that evolutionists, though they discover many wonderful things, use infallible belief in what is fallible and contaminatable, refusing to acknowledge the errors they make for whatever reason.
if one chooses to look for the truth objectively they have a chance onfinding it but since secular man's mind is filled with human thinking it is easy to see why they miss out.
-
Rokcet Scientist
-
Guest
QUIT WASTING TIME DEBATING PREACHERS
The idea that a fellow named Noah actually lived, and that he did anticipate a great flood by building a ship to survive it is not in and of itself a wild and zany myth. The idea that this was anything more than a cataclysmic regional event and that it was the act of direct intervention by "god" is not a statement borne out by physical evidence. So, that idea becomes an article of belief for those who seek revealed truth rather than demonstrated physical fact.
It is useless to argue from a phsical evidence platform with someone who defines his or her world-view on the principles of revealed truth and faith.
This is a thread whose only purpose is to watch people bang their heads without ever accomplishing anything. If the evangelist alleging to be an archaeologist - an impossible claim, for archaeolgists must address the physical evidence with honesty and open-mindedness rather than preconceptions that defy physical evidence - needs a platform for preching, then this forum is creating it.
It is useless to argue from a phsical evidence platform with someone who defines his or her world-view on the principles of revealed truth and faith.
This is a thread whose only purpose is to watch people bang their heads without ever accomplishing anything. If the evangelist alleging to be an archaeologist - an impossible claim, for archaeolgists must address the physical evidence with honesty and open-mindedness rather than preconceptions that defy physical evidence - needs a platform for preching, then this forum is creating it.
stuff
Hats off to Guest, Freethinker, and others who have taken on the
onerous task of refuting archaeologist in a patient and technical way. They have done a much
better job than I could.
It is clear that arch is holding the scientific view to an impossible standard
of proof, whereas he doesn't demonstrate any standard of proof for his own view. So, in arch's view, obviously, the scientists "can't" win.
I also agree that he is only preaching his faith and has no real interest in understanding what happend in ancient times.
The study of paloentology and prehistory is not something that can always be based on replicable laboratory experiments, as can chemistry and physics.
The standard of proof in the areas we are concerned with is more like that of a courtroom....you try to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt.
And I believe that there is integrity in trying to understand things in this way.
You have to do the best with the evidence you have, and fill in the blanks, then alter the picture as more evidence is discovered.
In the case of geology-related matters, in particular, upon which a lot of
paleontology is based, the evidence is massive.
onerous task of refuting archaeologist in a patient and technical way. They have done a much
better job than I could.
It is clear that arch is holding the scientific view to an impossible standard
of proof, whereas he doesn't demonstrate any standard of proof for his own view. So, in arch's view, obviously, the scientists "can't" win.
I also agree that he is only preaching his faith and has no real interest in understanding what happend in ancient times.
The study of paloentology and prehistory is not something that can always be based on replicable laboratory experiments, as can chemistry and physics.
The standard of proof in the areas we are concerned with is more like that of a courtroom....you try to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt.
And I believe that there is integrity in trying to understand things in this way.
You have to do the best with the evidence you have, and fill in the blanks, then alter the picture as more evidence is discovered.
In the case of geology-related matters, in particular, upon which a lot of
paleontology is based, the evidence is massive.
The deeper you go, the higher you fly.
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16035
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
Hats off to Guest, Freethinker, and others who have taken on the
onerous task of refuting archaeologist in a patient and technical way.
Doubtlessly a waste of time, though.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Guest
actually, they haven't as they can not answer any of the questions i asked. nor can they 'scientifically' back up their claims.Freethinker, and others who have taken on the
onerous task of refuting archaeologist in a patient and technical way
i am just holding the scientific view up to the same standard that you are holding the creationists up to. if you can't do it then don't ask the creationist to either.It is clear that arch is holding the scientific view to an impossible standard
of proof
'filling in the blanks' is neither scientific nor is it true. i would rather have you say 'i don't know' than come up with some idiotic theory that makes no sense what-so-ever.You have to do the best with the evidence you have, and fill in the blanks
i am presenting my side but this is a typical complaint from those who can not produce clear cut evidence for their own argument. if you rely on inference, then you are relying on falsehoods.I also agree that he is only preaching his faith and has no real interest in understanding what happend in ancient times
there is no such thing as pre-history. it is all history. the term was invented by modern man to help justify their inability to accept certain facts of life.prehistory
problemis, you can't prove it is a myth. in fact i have cited researchers and explained certain things that point its truthfulness but you are not willing to conced it is a possibility. so the only close-minded, myth lovers are you.The idea that a fellow named Noah actually lived, and that he did anticipate a great flood by building a ship to survive it is not in and of itself a wild and zany myth
it is useless to discuss such topics with those who claim they are scientific but can not fill the gaps with any credible and verifiable proof. "filling in the blanks" is not acceptable when trying to determine the truth, nor is it scientific, when you have no idea what took place nor prove such ventures into creativity.It is useless to argue from a phsical evidence platform with someone who defines his or her world-view on the principles of revealed truth and faith
this applies better to you as you have not cited one piece of physical evidence to support your claim. nor have you quoted from any objective and independent researcher who can cerify what you say. i at least have used the evidence from your own scientists to point outhow the physical evidence points to scripture and not evolution.for archaeolgists must address the physical evidence with honesty and open-mindedness rather than preconceptions that defy physical evidence
you will note that i rarely quote the Bible in these posts,so the preaching charge is wrong and off target. stop hiding behnd the guest option oh sorry that is what evolutionists do best. when it comes time for scrutiny, they run and hide because they can not survive close analysis.
-
Rokcet Scientist
Oops! So you didn't pay attention in elementary school either, now did you?archaeologist wrote:[...]there is no such thing as pre-history. it is all history. the term was invented by modern man to help justify their inability to accept certain facts of life.[...]
OK, I'll tell you ONE last time: history, my boy, is the written record. Pre-history is the non-written record. From the time before people had written languages!
Now don't you ever forget that again, you hear!
It will be in your test!
-
Guest
i know what it is and i find that it is faulty thinkiong as it does not take into account those tribes in south america and africa who, even in the 20th century, have no written record for their history.OK, I'll tell you ONE last time: history, my boy, is the written record. Pre-history is the non-written record
so all history, both written and oral can not be subdivided into their special categories but must remain as one unit known as history.
-
Tech
Ok Arch ,heres the reason naoh didnt happen , or are you going to tell me maths isnt a provable science
First- the global flood supposedly (Scripturally) covered the planet, (see that, Arch? 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 + 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= 4/3 * pi * r cubed
= 4/3 * pi * 6387.248 km cubed
= 1.09151 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.09151x102 km3)
Now, the Earth at sea level
V = 4/3 * pi * r cubed
= 4/3 * pi * 6378.4 km cubed
= 1.08698 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.08698x1012 km3)
The difference between these two figures is the amount of water needed to just cover the Earth:
4.525 x 10 to the ninth cubic kilometres (4.525x1009 km3) 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,
4.252x1009 km3 of water,
X 106 (= cubic meters),
X 106 (= cubic centimetres),
X 1 g/cm3 (= grams),
X 10-3 (= kilograms),
(turn the crank)
equals 4.525E+21 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 call 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, 1.00x1007 km2 X 1 km thickness equals 1.00E+07 km3 of ice.
Now, remember earlier that we noted that it would take 4.525x1009 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/year. Sea level was also lowered some 10's 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 4.525 x 109 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 1.37 x 109 km3. Where would this additional 4.525 x 109 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, it 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 4.252 x 109 km3 of water with a mass of 4.525 x 1021 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=M*g*H, 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 4.525 x 1021 kg/40 24 hr. periods. This equals 1.10675 x 1020 kilograms daily. Using H as 10 miles (16,000 meters), the energy released each day is 1.73584 x 1025 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 = 1.735384 x 1025/(4*3.14159* ((6386)2*86,400)) = 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 4'th 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 1800 K.
The temperature would thusly rise 1800 K, or 1,526.84 C (that's 2,780.33 F...lead melts at 880 F...ed note). 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 6' 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 ,
I cant wait to here the biblical B/S to refute this
First- the global flood supposedly (Scripturally) covered the planet, (see that, Arch? 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 + 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= 4/3 * pi * r cubed
= 4/3 * pi * 6387.248 km cubed
= 1.09151 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.09151x102 km3)
Now, the Earth at sea level
V = 4/3 * pi * r cubed
= 4/3 * pi * 6378.4 km cubed
= 1.08698 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.08698x1012 km3)
The difference between these two figures is the amount of water needed to just cover the Earth:
4.525 x 10 to the ninth cubic kilometres (4.525x1009 km3) 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,
4.252x1009 km3 of water,
X 106 (= cubic meters),
X 106 (= cubic centimetres),
X 1 g/cm3 (= grams),
X 10-3 (= kilograms),
(turn the crank)
equals 4.525E+21 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 call 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, 1.00x1007 km2 X 1 km thickness equals 1.00E+07 km3 of ice.
Now, remember earlier that we noted that it would take 4.525x1009 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/year. Sea level was also lowered some 10's 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 4.525 x 109 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 1.37 x 109 km3. Where would this additional 4.525 x 109 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, it 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 4.252 x 109 km3 of water with a mass of 4.525 x 1021 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=M*g*H, 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 4.525 x 1021 kg/40 24 hr. periods. This equals 1.10675 x 1020 kilograms daily. Using H as 10 miles (16,000 meters), the energy released each day is 1.73584 x 1025 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 = 1.735384 x 1025/(4*3.14159* ((6386)2*86,400)) = 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 4'th 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 1800 K.
The temperature would thusly rise 1800 K, or 1,526.84 C (that's 2,780.33 F...lead melts at 880 F...ed note). 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 6' 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 ,
I cant wait to here the biblical B/S to refute this
-
Guest
nice try, though you made some mistakes in your formulas. first off, it wouldn't be diameter but circumferance. the water didn't go through the earth but was added to what was already there.
secondly, there is no proof that there were ice caps at that time. you are assuming the world was the samw as it is now.
thirdly, no one knows how much water there is under the ground or kept in the clouds of the sky, nor how much moisture was in the air at the time of the flood. do not use modern day parameters for the pre-flood world.
fourth, don't think that there was a sahara desert at the time either. that didn't arise till after the flood.
fifth, do not assume that the heights of the mountains were as high as they are now. we have no idea of the geography of the pre-flood world and to use modern day geographical figures to calculate ancient day events is assuming too much and may be mis-leading.
if we assume that your figures are close to correct then the results would be as they are today, with the modern world seasonal, geographical, vegetational, etc. (for lack of a better word) situations would be changed. which we know to be true as the pre-flood world was vastly different from the modern one.
thus the change in the earth's positioning may be the key to the answer as to why ice is over a mile thick on anartica and greenland. you wondered where the water went, well your own researchers seem to find a lot of it remaining behind in different areas of the world.
secondly, there is no proof that there were ice caps at that time. you are assuming the world was the samw as it is now.
thirdly, no one knows how much water there is under the ground or kept in the clouds of the sky, nor how much moisture was in the air at the time of the flood. do not use modern day parameters for the pre-flood world.
fourth, don't think that there was a sahara desert at the time either. that didn't arise till after the flood.
fifth, do not assume that the heights of the mountains were as high as they are now. we have no idea of the geography of the pre-flood world and to use modern day geographical figures to calculate ancient day events is assuming too much and may be mis-leading.
if we assume that your figures are close to correct then the results would be as they are today, with the modern world seasonal, geographical, vegetational, etc. (for lack of a better word) situations would be changed. which we know to be true as the pre-flood world was vastly different from the modern one.
thus the change in the earth's positioning may be the key to the answer as to why ice is over a mile thick on anartica and greenland. you wondered where the water went, well your own researchers seem to find a lot of it remaining behind in different areas of the world.
yes it is but i don't care where the water came from, that is not important. as i said, we don't know how much water there really is on, under and above the earth but suffice it to say that there was enough to do the task at hand. what is important are the lessons that need to be learned from the story and to avoid the charge of preaching, i will wait till you ask me about those lessons because those lessons lay the foundation for what is to come when the world ends.This is one helluva lot of water