1. Account suspended
    Joined
    15 Jun '09
    Moves
    0
    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
    about the amounts involved.

    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,
    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 4.525×109 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"😉. 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. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    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. Account suspended
    Joined
    15 Jun '09
    Moves
    0
    15 Jun '09 06:47
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Agree.
    Anyone with basic understanding of physics knows this.
    😉
  4. Account suspended
    Joined
    15 Jun '09
    Moves
    0
    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. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    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. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51469
    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.
    1. Somebody made it up.

    2. Somebody followed the good quote 'why let the truth get in the way of a good story!?', and exaggerated a little.
  7. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51469
    15 Jun '09 12:14
    3. Or we can believe the laws of physics were broken.
  8. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    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. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    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. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    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. Joined
    01 Feb '06
    Moves
    994
    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. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    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. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    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. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    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. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    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.
Back to Top