# Dispelling the flood myth.

Ironman6
Spirituality 15 Jun '09 06:31
1. 15 Jun '09 06:31
I found an interesting reply to the Noah fatasy story. What U think??

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

So, here are the calculations:

First, Everest:

V = 4/3×pi×r3
= 4/3×pi×6387.248 km3
= 1.09151×1012 km3
Now, the Earth at sea level:

V = 4/3×pi×r3
= 4/3×pi×6378.4 km3
= 1.08698×1012 km3
The difference between these two figures is the amount of water needed to just
cover the Earth: 4.525×109 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:

4.525×109 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 4.525×1021 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, 1.00×107 km2 times 1 km thickness equals 1.00×107 km3 of ice.

Now, remember earlier that we noted that it would take 4.525×109 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,
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 4.525×109 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 1.37×109 km3. Where would this additional
4.525×109 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"ðŸ˜‰. 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 4.525×109 km3 of water with a mass of
4.525×1021 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=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 4.525×1021 kg/40 24-hr.
periods. This equals 1.10675×1020 kilograms daily. Using H as 10 miles (16,000
meters), the energy released each day is 1.73584×1025 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 = 1.735384×1025/(4×3.14159×((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.
2. 15 Jun '09 06:46
Originally posted by Ironman6
It is quite clear that a Biblical Flood is and was quite impossible. Only fools and those shackled by dogma would insist otherwise.
Agree.
Anyone with basic understanding of physics knows this.
3. 15 Jun '09 06:47
Originally posted by FabianFnas
Agree.
Anyone with basic understanding of physics knows this.
ðŸ˜‰
4. 15 Jun '09 07:02
So if somebody came up to you and blatently lied to your face. Do you believe what they said the day before?? Do you believe what they say in the future. No you dont and the same goes with the Bible and Christianity.
5. 15 Jun '09 11:451 edit
Originally posted by Ironman6
So if somebody came up to you and blatently lied to your face. Do you believe what they said the day before?? Do you believe what they say in the future. No you dont and the same goes with the Bible and Christianity.
and naturally you have an alternative? well let it be heard, so that we too may come to appreciate the profundity of your truth in the shadow of this straw man argument.
6. Proper Knob
Cornovii
15 Jun '09 11:56
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and naturally you have an alternative? well let it be heard, so that we too may come to appreciate the profundity of your truth in the shadow of this straw man argument.

2. Somebody followed the good quote 'why let the truth get in the way of a good story!?', and exaggerated a little.
7. Proper Knob
Cornovii
15 Jun '09 12:14
3. Or we can believe the laws of physics were broken.
8. 15 Jun '09 14:475 edits
Originally posted by Ironman6
I found an interesting reply to the Noah fatasy story. What U think??

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. W ossible. Only fools
and those shackled by dogma would insist otherwise.
============================
First - the global flood supposedly (Scripturally) covered the planet,
====================================

Ironman, you worked really hard on this article (or copy of an article). But your running assumption may be erroneous so as to make your argument irrelevant to the larger point of the flood story.

The Bible uses the phrase that someone came "from the ends of the earth" to Jerusalem to hear Solomon. Geographically that said person did not come from all that far away. By modern standards of travel it wasn't that far away.

The Bible said "a census to be taken of all the inhabited earth". I am sure that China, Greenland, Australia or the Meso Americans were not meant to be included in that census.

The expression all the mountains under heaven may simply be an expression. How do you know that it calls for a strict understanding that the entire planet was flooded?

Oh, I know that some Bible readers will insist that this could be the only meaning. What if they are wrong ?

I think what is important is that the society then was judged. Judged is judged. How many square miles were included in the calamity is not really that important. That everyone was judged except those who were in the means of salvation, the ark, were saved ... that is the important point.

In other words I think you are laboring to make a technicality to comfort you in rejection of the most important point of the account. Perhaps you feel fueled to do so because of some vocal exponents of Young Earth Creationist ideas about the lituralness of certain expressions. "ie. it had to be every mountain on the planet, period".

Suppose it was a limited flood which wiped out what was known as the world at that time? Don't you think it is worthy to give attention to the account?

I take it seriously in its essence because Jesus seems to have taken it seriously as to its essence.
9. 15 Jun '09 15:061 edit
The story of the flood was not written by a contemporary to it. If God revealed the account to one of His prophets, the prophet, like Moses, could have written down faithfully what he saw.

IE. I saw in a vision that all the mountains were covered by water. Now I write down in this book what I saw in this vision.

I do not have to assume that God gave him the vision from that standpoint of someone on the Moon observing water flooding around the entire globe of the planet.

I can assume that he saw it from some vantage point in order to get the point across that everything of the then existing human society and the animals was under a deluge.
10. 15 Jun '09 15:111 edit
Funny thing these days. If the scientist tell us that all the life on the planet was wiped out from a meteor or undersea poison gas, we readily accept it as possible.

"Where did all the dinosaurs go anyway?" we ask. "Well they all were killed in a killer comet probably." That's OK.

The Bible says that God caused a flood to judge all the people except eight, and that is not possible. We reason that the former is reasonable but not the latter.
11. 15 Jun '09 16:54
Originally posted by jaywill
Funny thing these days. If the scientist tell us that all the life on the planet was wiped out from a meteor or undersea poison gas, we readily accept it as possible.

"Where did all the dinosaurs go anyway?" we ask. "Well they all were killed in a killer comet probably." That's OK.

The Bible says that God caused a flood to judge all the people ...[text shortened]... ight, and that is not possible. We reason that the former is reasonable but not the latter.
The meteor strike doesn't have to break thousands of scientific laws to hold and is backed up by compelling evidence. And it's a theory, not written in stone and accepted as hard facts, unlike the bible story.
12. 15 Jun '09 17:532 edits
Originally posted by PawnChop
The meteor strike doesn't have to break thousands of scientific laws to hold and is backed up by compelling evidence. And it's a theory, not written in stone and accepted as hard facts, unlike the bible story.
You may know that traditions of a great flood in antiquity have been found all around the world.

There seems to be something in the collective memory of many cultures about a flood in which a few people were preserved.

Details of course differ greatly. The general theme is quite consistent. I once remember seeing a graph showing how many cultures had such a tradition and what details overlaped and which did not.

Are you aware of this ?
13. Palynka
Upward Spiral
15 Jun '09 18:11
Originally posted by jaywill
You may know that traditions of a great flood in antiquity have been found all around the world.

There seems to be something in the collective memory of many cultures about a flood in which a few people were preserved.

Details of course differ greatly. The general theme is quite consistent. I once remember seeing a graph showing how many cultures had such a tradition and what details overlaped and which did not.

Are you aware of this ?
Yes, but the explanation cannot be a contradiction of basic physics.

I'm also very interested as to why the myth is pervasive. There are several explanations that go from the impact that floods had on early settlements or a large flood in early human history before/during early migrations.
14. 15 Jun '09 18:294 edits
Originally posted by Ironman6
I found an interesting reply to the Noah fatasy story. What U think??

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. W ossible. Only fools
and those shackled by dogma would insist otherwise.
=============================
Only fools
and those shackled by dogma would insist otherwise.
================================

Jesus seemed to take the story of Noah seriously.

He said "For just as the days of Noah were, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day in which Noah entered into the ark, and they did not know [that judgement was coming] until the flood came and took all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be." (Matt. 24:37-39)

Is Jesus Christ a fool shackled by dogma ?

Are you saying that we would be better advized to trust in your knowledge of physics concerning this ?

Jesus here warns us that the evil of world society has a limit. God, as He did in Noah's day, will not allow wickedness to prevail with no end. The Son of Man will come and world judgment will take place.

Is this Man a fool shackled by dogma and we should instead rely on your knowledge of physics to inform us that there will be no judgment of God upon a wickedness filled world?
15. 15 Jun '09 18:36
Originally posted by Palynka
Yes, but the explanation cannot be a contradiction of basic physics.

I'm also very interested as to why the myth is pervasive. There are several explanations that go from the impact that floods had on early settlements or a large flood in early human history before/during early migrations.
=======================
Yes, but the explanation cannot be a contradiction of basic physics.
============================

You mean we have to accept Ironman's critique as the only possible explanation of what Genesis discribes?

==================================
I'm also very interested as to why the myth is pervasive. There are several explanations that go from the impact that floods had on early settlements or a large flood in early human history before/during early migrations.
===========================

What I think is going on is that you have many myths that have some basis in something in history. I think that what is best known by reading the revelation of the Bible.

The survivors dispersed. Cultures grew. The memorable account passed on by the few witnesses was gradually embellished here and there to meet local needs.

But to ascertain what all these myths are based in in human history might well be impossible without the aid of God's revelation, the Bible.

If He hadn't told us, we would never have known what happened and why it happened.