The Flood of assumptions

[Cmass]

What assumptions must be made. Part 2:

What assumptions must we make about the story of The Flood that would render the story a true fact?

* Can we make assumptions that are based soundly in science that could render the story plausible?

* Christians, what assumptions have you made about the flood story that has kept it alive for you over the years?

In another thread we discussed the Ark but in this one concentrate on the actual flood. For example, if all the ice in the world melted, could it cover the whole planet? If not, where did the extra water come from? Did God provide it? etc...

[jwu]

If the water came up from under the ocean, it would have mixed with the water above the surface and cooled so even if it were really hot, this isn't a problem.

The oceans don't contain enough water to do that. They would have been boiled away as well. Keep in mind the relations...if the pre-flood oceans were like those today, then about three times their total volume would have to be released that way. 1 litre of water isn't going to put 3 litres of water worth of superheated steam to conditions which life can survive.

And that even grants you an even distribution of the heat, when in reality only a few miles across the exit point would have to be heated to the boiling point for steam to escape.

I don't understand your second part. How would the atmospheric pressures have increased? if anything shouldn't they have decreased as the Ark rose higher?

No, because it wouldn't have had any water to rise on...just boiling hot steam.

Even if the waters didn't come from underground, heated by the high temperatures and pressure in the earth, but came from rainfall (or condensing steam) instead, the potential energy released in the fall of the rain would increase the temperature on earth to more than 1000°C. No fluid water present, and everyone killed by yet another cause.

As for how the waters disappeared, I never said anything at all about them returning to whence they came so please READ what I did write before critiquing it.

I didn't say you had claimed so, did i? So apply that to yourself before you accuse me of it.
I just said that the waters returning to their original place is not an option. You are free to explain alternatives.

[achilles12604]

Quote:

If the water came up from under the ocean, it would have mixed with the water above the surface and cooled so even if it were really hot, this isn't a problem.

The oceans don't contain enough water to do that. They would have been boiled away as well. Keep in mind the relations...if the pre-flood oceans were like those today, then about three times their total volume would have to be released that way. 1 litre of water isn't going to put 3 litres of water worth of superheated steam to conditions which life can survive.

And that even grants you an even distribution of the heat, when in reality only a few miles across the exit point would have to be heated to the boiling point for steam to escape.

You have a source for those numbers or are you just guessing? And where did you get those numbers anyhow? 1 to 3 ratio? The oceans today have about 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons. Given that it would not be necessary to cover the highest peaks of the mountains the water level didn't need to reach all that high. Most of the human civilizations were actually fairly close to sea level during this time so how did you get a 1 for 3 ratio or any of the other "facts" you just shot off?

Quote:
I don't understand your second part. How would the atmospheric pressures have increased? if anything shouldn't they have decreased as the Ark rose higher?
No, because it wouldn't have had any water to rise on...just boiling hot steam.

Even if the waters didn't come from underground, heated by the high temperatures and pressure in the earth, but came from rainfall (or condensing steam) instead, the potential energy released in the fall of the rain would increase the temperature on earth to more than 1000°C. No fluid water present, and everyone killed by yet another cause.

Once again this is assuming that the result would be steam. However you are a long was from showing this would have been the case. So far you have offered a ton of numbers but nothing to support them. Why would water coming from the earth's crust be so hot that it would manage to stay steam despite being placed under the pressure of the ocean and the temperatures of the deep while rising between 3660 and 8500 meters?

Volcanoes on the ocean floor consist of magma itself. Yet these eruptions don't evaporate the oceans. Also remember that this flow of underground water did not come all at once. If you wish to take the bible literally then there would have been 40 days of water flow. The heat would be dissipated over time. And that is if you read it literally. Figuratively, it simply would indicate a very long period of time.

The temperature of the ocean (deep) averages to 2 degrees celsius

http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Ge-Hy/ ... Floor.html

Underwater volcanoes and hot springs are constantly heating the water at over 1000 degrees. The oceans are not gone.


In this case, until you can support your numbers, the "flood of assumptions" lies with you.

[otseng]

I believe in a literal global flood and believe it best explains many things. I've given my arguments already in Global Flood. I'd rather not rehash everything again in this thread. But, since it's been awhile since that topic was discussed, I'd be willing to answer some questions (or at least try to answer them). And if they could be new questions, I'll try even harder.

[Goat]

What assumptions must be made. Part 2:

What assumptions must we make about the story of The Flood that would render the story a true fact?

* Can we make assumptions that are based soundly in science that could render the story plausible?

* Christians, what assumptions have you made about the flood story that has kept it alive for you over the years?

In another thread we discussed the Ark but in this one concentrate on the actual flood. For example, if all the ice in the world melted, could it cover the whole planet? If not, where did the extra water come from? Did God provide it? etc...

Except the volumn of water needed is much more than woudl be below the crust. Remember, to cover 'all the world', it would have to reach the height of mount everst.

I am hesitant to enter this topic because I know that there are many fundi's which hold to ideas which do not agree with facts. I myself have not done much research into this topic because I find debating this to be irrelivant. Having said that I have heard a plausible suggestion to explain the source of the water.


If the flood were litteral, then there would need to be a tremendous amount of water on earth in a very short timeframe. Now below the outer crust of the earth is a layer of water which circumvents the globe. I heard a lecture one time about how this layer was once thought to have contained much more water than it does today. If this were the case then this would be a fairly obvious source for the water. Even the bible could be in agreement since waters "from the depths" were released or opened up.

This water would need a place to break through the outer crust. What about the ridge line in the Atlantic? This break in the sea floor cuts almost through half the globe. This could easily be a place where a massive amount of water could come through.

How's this for a suggestion about the source of the water?

[jwu]

You have a source for those numbers or are you just guessing? And where did you get those numbers anyhow? 1 to 3 ratio? The oceans today have about 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons.Given that it would not be necessary to cover the highest peaks of the mountains the water level didn't need to reach all that high. Most of the human civilizations were actually fairly close to sea level during this time so how did you get a 1 for 3 ratio or any of the other "facts" you just shot off?

The Bible explicitly states that there was full coverage, doesn't it?

The oceans today cover exactly as much as they do, so that's a non-issue. You need another roughly 9 kilometres of water on top of that.

Volume of the earth when covered by water to the top of Mount Everest:

V= 4/3 * pi * r³
= 4/3 * pi * 6387.248 km³
= 1.09151 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.09151x102 km3)

Volume 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 10^9 cubic kilometres.

Your figure of the volume of the oceans amounts to 1.23 *10^9 cubic kilometres.
4.525/1.23 = 3.67
So it takes more than thrice the current amount of water in the oceans in addition to it to cover the earth. Since not the entire land mass is at sea level, it'd be a bit less than that, but a ratio of 3:1 still is generous to your side.


So, to flood the earth you need 4.252 x 10^9 km3 of water with a mass of 4.525 x 10^21 kg.
Using the scenario as described in Genesis, the amount of mass falling to Earthis 4.525 x 10^21 kg for 40 24 hour periods. That's 1.10675 x 10^20 kg every day. If it falls from a height of ten miles, the energy released every day by this is 1.73584 x 10^25 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.

Stefan- Boltzman 4'th power law:
E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T4 (normal)

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

This means that T (increase) equals 1800 K. That's more than 2000°C. No liquid water...

Once again this is assuming that the result would be steam. Once again this is assuming that the result would be steam.

Actually it is the creation model itself that says that it would be steam.

However, at the mid-atlantic ridge there is a geothermal gradient of 200°C/km, and a several kilometres thick layer of such water would be requred. Due to the excessive amount of water, you just can't get it below a temperature of hundreds of degree celsius.

Even if it's just 200°C - 4.5*10^9 cubic kilometres of it should be able to make a third of that amount of ocean water boil too, should they not? Not even taking into account the kinetic energy...

Why would water coming from the earth's crust be so hot that it would manage to stay steam despite being placed under the pressure of the ocean and the temperatures of the deep while rising between 3660 and 8500 meters?

Because the ocean would get heated up itself. The first few thousand cubic kilometres would lose their energy to heat up the local ocean, the rest would burst right through it like the bubbles from the bottom of a pot of boiling water.

Volcanoes on the ocean floor consist of magma itself. Yet these eruptions don't evaporate the oceans. Also remember that this flow of underground water did not come all at once. If you wish to take the bible literally then there would have been 40 days of water flow. The heat would be dissipated over time.

The heat dissipation is included in the above kinetic energy calculation.

Underwater volcanoes and hot springs are constantly heating the water at over 1000 degrees. The oceans are not gone.

Tiny amounts of water. It doesn't heat it up right to the surface, not even anywhere near it, and that way the pressure keeps it in liquid form. If the heat reaches the surface or a region with insufficient pressure, you get a steam explosion.
The analogy with underwater volcanoes is not in any way comparable to three times the ocean's volume of superheated water being released...

[Jose]

I believe in a literal global flood and believe it best explains many things. I've given my arguments already in Global Flood. I'd rather not rehash everything again in this thread. But, since it's been awhile since that topic was discussed, I'd be willing to answer some questions (or at least try to answer them). And if they could be new questions, I'll try even harder.

Excellent point. I quite agree. I'll even add a reminder that we discussed a lot of ideas in a thread on creation in the classroom, which led to the interesting idea of treating the flood story as a first-level scientific hypothesis in the Flood as Science thread, where we wondered what would have to be true now if the flood story is accurate.

It seems to me that up until the water drained away, things followed whatever rules god wanted to apply. The current interpretation of Genesis, though, is that after that the current laws of physics have remained in effect. If raining or exploding geysers would have vaporized the water and all of life with it, then god simply didn't let it happen. If god pulled the big bathtub plug in the bottom of the ocean, and let the water drain away into the great Storm Drain of the Universe, he could. After all, the whole point of the story is to use implausible, godly powers to create what we see now. BUT...at some point, as in nearly all religions, god sneaked away and stopped taking such an active hand in what happens on earth. He set things up the way they are, and left them that way. So, the only way to look at this without excessive speculation is to compare what we see now with what the flood story says has to be there now.

[Cmass]

I believe in a literal global flood and believe it best explains many things. I've given my arguments already in Global Flood. I'd rather not rehash everything again in this thread. But, since it's been awhile since that topic was discussed, I'd be willing to answer some questions (or at least try to answer them). And if they could be new questions, I'll try even harder.

I read through that thread.....although very similar, this one is going in a bit of a different direction and has a different vibe to it. There are also different people involved and I am hoping it won't end in a big fist fight with people putting each other on ignore lists and such.

Let this one grow as it will.

[Cathar1950]

..at some point, as in nearly all religions, god sneaked away and stopped taking such an active hand in what happens on earth. He set things up the way they are, and left them that way. So, the only way to look at this without excessive speculation is to compare what we see now with what the flood story says has to be there now.

It is funny how God or gods were so open and active and then gone and transendent. God or gods once did magic shows, now it is all science.
Except to the believer, then it is up for grabs.

[Cmass]

God or gods once did magic shows, now it is all science.

I think this is actually very insightful. I had never thought of it that way....

[Goat]

..at some point, as in nearly all religions, god sneaked away and stopped taking such an active hand in what happens on earth. He set things up the way they are, and left them that way. So, the only way to look at this without excessive speculation is to compare what we see now with what the flood story says has to be there now.

It is funny how God or gods were so open and active and then gone and transendent. God or gods once did magic shows, now it is all science.
Except to the believer, then it is up for grabs.

Some sci-fi author or other (I think Larry Niven) said "suffienctly advanced technology is indistingushable from magic"