Noah's Ark

Dr Chittick also appears oblivious to a very long list of facts. Where do we start??
How much heat does moving the Americas 4000 km generate, even with Teflon bearings at the Moho to keep the coefficient of friction down?How much heat does deforming near-level rock into a range like the Andes generate?What sort of permeability would soil/rock have to have to give up a few hundred meters of water in a year? What force would drive it?How much more water can you fit into the atmosphere at livable temperatures? If you take our present atmosphere to 100% relative humidity, how much precipitation would this yield? Maybe a meter? Ten meters?

quote:

---

Movement of the water off the continents and into the oceans would have weighed down the ocean floor and lightened the continents, resulting in the further sinking of the ocean floor,

---

Last time I looked, water was less dense than rock...I'll stop here, or I'll miss work tomorrow morning.

wj Using your approach you could debunk any new emerging theory of science, some of which turn out to be correct. New approaches always have holes. The creationist scenario has more parsimonous aspects than holes IMO. In an introductory 3 paragraph summary I felt quite justified in presenting the positive aspects of the scenario. Three or four potential solutions to the excess heat problem have been proposed by the RATE group and others:1. Superheated jets of steam at underwater rift valleys traversing the globe transported water (and heat) to escape velocity. Comets (mostly ice) may represent this catastrophic event.2. The expansion of the universe may still have been proceeding at a rapid pace during the time of the flood (using the Humphreys cosmology) and the heat was absorbed by spatial expansion (see the RATE book for calcs).3. Accelerated radiodecay, continental drift, and flood associated events occurred gradually over hundreds of years pre- and post- the primary flood event and people survived in regions of low radioisotope abundance. This is my wacky theory which may or may not be easily debunked. That's easily explained and emerges natrually from the sceanrio for exactly the same reasons that all rocks on Earth aren't 4.5 billion years old in the mainstream scenario. Rocks are time-reset by liquificaiton and the clock starts from the time of solidificaiton. Hence rocks that became solidified half way through the flood record display half of the decay that rocks solidified at the beginning of the flood display. Precisely how the mainstream scheme works. I'd have to do some research to discover when the uplift occurred mainstream. Whatever the case the GD range got uplifted at some point during the history of this planet! Our scenario probably puts a constraint of post-Cretacous. I'll check it out. Regardless of the mechanims of uplift, if the rocks record the uplift occurred post-Cretacous there is no problem. (I'm assuming here that the 100% coverage occured at the Cretacous). From my mainstream reading I see mto recall that most mountain ranges only survive for about 100 million years so I have presumed that most of our current mountain ranges are younger than 100 million years mainstream (not far off from the KT boundary age of 66 My). We agree with the mainstream expectation that there would be almost no fossiliztion on land during (let's be generous) the 1000 years it took them to get to Australia.

That's good stuff believer.The only thing I can add is that the ground water aspect is not strictly necessary. If we have catastrophic tectonics you cannot avoid vast boil-off of seawater near the rift valleys and thus lots of rain via condensation.On the other hand Scripture describes 'fountains' and the 'windows of the heavans' as sources of course so we have to allow for the possibility of subteranean water and some sort of canopy collapse. But the 'windows of the heavens' could be interpreted as condensing rift-valley steam and the fountains of the deep could be huge plumes of magma deep in the mantle that may be driving plate tectonics.

quote:

---

Rocks are time-reset by liquificaiton and the clock starts from the time of solidificaiton.

---

Okay.... take the Siberian traps and their westward, subsurface extension. Basalt, by definition solidified from tme melt, and up to 2 kilometers thick. I'll give you 1000 years to emplace them, so the heat, sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen fluoride that accompanies their eruption doesn't kill Methuseleh and all other life on earth. Now how long does it take to cool a slab of rock 2 km thick from 1600 F to room temperature? Even if a year of that cooling time is under water.... And we'll ignore (for now) the several dozen dates from different radioisotopes that all say 251 +/- 2 million years old.

quote:

---

Comets (mostly ice) may represent this catastrophic event.

---

Orbital mechanics would seem to dictate that objects launched ballistically from Earth would be on orbits that intersect Earth's. Why don't all those comets (and asteroids too, if you read Walt Brown) hit us weekly? And why are the deuterium/hydrogen ratios so widely different in cometary vapor and on Earth? And really - steam at 25,000 miles per hour isn't going to warm our atmosphere even a teensey little bit? That whole scenario is past laughable and all the way to just pitiable.

CoragypsThe TrapsOur model would predict variation in 'age' with presuamably the inner most layers being younger due to cooling proceeding from the outside to the inside.On the other hand solidificaiton may occur rapidly even on our flood timescale with cooling to room temperature nevertheless taking a long time. The traps are undoubtedly a very good test bed of the theory, I'll agree.Where is the data showing that the date is so homogeneous? I have seen tables of data showing far more inhomogenity in far thinner flows.Flood cometsComets do regualraly interact with our orbit and orbital mechanics does not require them to interact with the Earth itself. Of course in our sceanrio we have dozens of solar orbits for encounters with the giant planets to skew things.And we all know that the Ort cloud has no actual evidecne and had to be proposed simply becasue the comets should not still be around in your scenario.Solar wind may have altered the deuterium/hydrogen ratio and I have no idea how much atmospheric hating would occur from the jets but it is certainaly a help to the model to expel heat from the planet.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-14-2003]

I've been reading all of this and find it quite interesting. Science, indeed, is remarkable. Without science, much of what we see and do today would not be possible. I for one will stand and applaud science and it's scientists, though I am not a scientist or have never studied it.BUT....... some things can not be explained, even scientifically. Sometimes it takes us just believing and having faith. I'm going to use the ole "you have to have faith to sit in that chair" bit, but it rings truer than most things. Your argument would probably be..."I can see the chair, so I can believe that the chair will hold me up when I sit in it." True, you can see the chair, but you can not see the maker. You see the evidence of the maker by looking at the chair, but never see the maker, or what kind of wood he used, or was it sloppily (if that is a word) put together, or did he take painstakingly steps to insure it's durability? You will have no idea before you sit in it for the first time.We look around us and see this vast expanse and this incredibly beautiful creation we call earth. And we see all this wonder and try to explain it with just a few words and a diploma that says "we know the secrets, but give us time to explain it." That's all well and good, but it sometimes doesn't work that way. God SPOKE all this into existance, and yes, He can do things that we will NEVER be able to explain. Including the flood. You can choose to believe or not to believe, but I for one believe.

quote:

---

Where is the data showing that the date is so homogeneous?

---

Reichow, et al., Science 2002 June 7; 296: 1846-1849 give about twenty dates for the newly found buried basalts west of the Siberian Traps, as well as for the traps themselves: about a million cubic kilometers of rock. Average age is 249.4 +/- 0.5 million years by Ar-Ar dating, confirmed by U/Pb dates.

quote:

---

And we all know that the Ort cloud has no actual evidecne and had to be proposed simply becasue the comets should not still be around in your scenario.

---

We have a good deal of evidence for the Oort Cloud: comets whose orbits clearly originated out there. Fifteen years ago we had only that sort of evidence for the much closer Kuiper Belt, and now, last time I looked, 618 objects have been found that meet all proposed requirements for Kuiper objects - they're just so far out there that we've only found the big ones so far.

I've started a thread on plate tectonics and the Flood on the "Geology and the Great Floor" board based on this thread.http://EvC Forum: Plate tectonics, mountain building, and the Flood -->EvC Forum: Plate tectonics, mountain building, and the Flood

Can anyone tell me why, in the account of the directions to Noah, no animal is mentioned which is not indigenous to the Middle East? Why no mention of strange white bears, or birds in tuxedos, or any marsupials at all?In fact, there is no mention anywhere in the Bible, so far as I can tell, of any animal other than those one might expect to find in the region today. (Except, of course, for the mysterious and elusive leviathan and behemoth.)Does this tell us anything? I think it might.
-Shiloh

CoragypsIt would be nice to know what part(s) of the traps that very consistent result came from.

I agree vangogh.Having said that I am a scientist so it's my job to do science. What I am finding more an more is that the Bible is enabling us to understand a lot of the strange things about our planet in ways quite differnet from mainstream science and yet we use the same data. I think as Christian creationists we are starting to understand why, as well as how, God did some of the things he did to this planet. Our God is a God that uses physical processes. Water to wash the Earth, blood to cleanse sin (in the OT) and Jesus who came in biological flesh. But I agree we need to be careful not to go overboard.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-15-2003]

quote:

---

It would be nice to know what part(s) of the traps that very consistent result came from.

---

Various parts - four boreholes up to 4 km deep (the western buried basalt has up to 2 km of sediment on top) and several surface locations. There's a map in the cited paper.

Quote
______________________________________________________________
Origionaly posted by Coragyps
Last time I looked, water was less dense than rock...
______________________________________________________________Me too, I'm not disagreeing with that. What I mean is that the pressure of the water on the ocean floor is pushing it down. The average ocean depth is about 3800 meters. At that depth there is 5,548 pounds per square inch. Compare that to the 14.6 pounds of pressure on dry land (at sea level) and the ocean plates are obviously much heavier. (The pressure increases about one atmosphere for every 10 meters of water depth.)Quote
_____________________________________________________________________
Origionaly posted by Coragyps
What sort of permeability would soil/rock have to have to give up a few hundred meters of water in a year? What force would drive it?
_________________________________________________________________________I’ll admit that the fountains of the great deep (Genesis 7:11) must have been a huge source of water. Some have suggested that when God made dry land appear from under the waters on the third day of creation, some of the water that covered the earth became trapped underneath and within the dry land. When the bible mentions the breaking up of the fountains this is understood to be large fissures in the ground or in the sea floor from which this trapped water could escape. Also there are many volcanic rocks interdispersed between the fossil layers (which from a biblical perspective would have been layed down by the flood), and this means that there was volcanic action during the flood. It is interesting to note that 70% of what comes out of volcanoes today is water in the form of steam. As for the force to drive all of this, I haven’t heard of a natural one. Though I could be wrong I believe the given reason is a supernatural one, but then if you believe in a God that created the earth in 6 days, then its hardly unrealistic.Quote
________________________________________________________________________
Origionaly posted by Coragyps
How much more water can you fit into the atmosphere at livable temperatures? If you take our present atmosphere to 100% relative humidity, how much precipitation would this yield? Maybe a meter? Ten meters?
_____________________________________________________________________You’re right. I did some research on that and found that although the atmosphere was thought to be denser, creating a wamer climate, the most it would have been able to hold without creating intolerable temperatures is 40 ft of rain. The idea that I stated earlier is a weak one. That was kind of disapointing, but since I didn’t want to say uncle, I did a little more reaserch and found that they came up with a better and much simpler explaination for the 40 days of rain. The volcanic activity that I mentioned earlier would have created a linear gyser of superheated steam from the ocean, causing global rain.Ps. This is all basically what Tranquility base said in message 18. Thanks
PPs. Well stated Vangogh

Response to Shilohproject-
All I can see is like in Genesis 6:19-21 commands to bring in every kind. Where does it mention specific animals? I can’t find it. By the way Behemoth is a Brontisorous it talks about him in Job:40 feeds on grass;what strength;what power;his tail sways like a cedar The leviathan is talked of in Job:41, I guess its another dinasour. If you’re implying that the flood was only a local flood you’re wrong. First of all logically it doesn’t make sence. Noah could have avoided the flood on foot, and the ark’s size to so enourmouse it only makes sence if all the animals of the entire earth were to be gathered onto it. Besides that there are sediment layers all of the earth layed down by the flood, implying that it was anything but local.

quote:

---

Compare that to the 14.6 pounds of pressure on dry land (at sea level) and the ocean plates are obviously much heavier.

---

So you would have a 3800-meter column of seawater pushing up a 3800-meter (or 1900-meter) column of rock, with 2.6 or more times the density of the water? Show me a mechanism.

quote:

---

and this means that there was volcanic action during the flood. It is interesting to note that 70% of what comes out of volcanoes today is water in the form of steam.

---

So we have enough steam, at at least 100 degrees C, coming out of volcanos, etc, to give us maybe a 500-meter thick "shell" of water once it condenses. And each gram of it's going to give up 540 calories of heat as it condenses to make that water, enough to raise the temperature of 10 grams of water already on the surface by 54 degrees C.
Was that Ark gopher wood, or real thick Styrofoam? I think you'll need the latter.