Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Some water measurements for the Flood
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(5)
Message 252 of 276 (730195)
06-25-2014 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Faith
06-24-2014 3:26 PM


Re: Rewriting Genesis
Creation Science is a special study of Genesis for the specific purpose of answering the false sciences of Evolution and the Old Earth
Creation science is a pack of lies, half-truths, misleading statements, and false science intended to support a particular position that is asserted to be "The Truth"
I began my journey about 7 years ago and I was a YEC, simply by default - because that is just what Christians believed. That's what the Bible says, right? I was a bit offended by a friend of mine who took a more liberal approach to the issue of origins and stated the we don't know, God could have used evolution or whatever means he wanted to create. I remember telling my wife "He's a bit too liberal for me."
Well, I lead the youth group at my local church and someone introduced me to the "Answers in Genesis" idea and it made a lot of sense to me. Genesis was the foundation of the Bible, the starting point. If that crumbles, the whole Bible crumbles, right? So I decided to do a series on creation vs. evolution for youth group.
I was given a book by Kent Hovind that "debunked" evolution and made sense of the "truth" about creation. As I worked though that book, I began to notice things that just didn't make sense. By the time I was finished with it, I was scratching my head and thinking, "something just doesn't add up." I began to do some of my own research on the subject and it was during that time that I found my way here to EvC. I started finding that these creation science claims were not all they were claimed to be (to say the least).
My faith was crushed. What I was discovering was that the Biblical claims (or more specifically creation science claims which were presented as Biblical claims) did not hold true. Genesis was crumbling around me and so was my faith, because, of course, if Genesis falls so does the entire Bible. I managed to maintain a semblance of normalcy, but inside I was on the verge of becoming an atheist.
One of the things this search did for me was re-kindle my love of science. I was a displaced worker (from the automotive industry) so I was unemployed and unable to find suitable work. I decided to go back to school and pursue a career in biology. My wife worked at a local Christian liberal arts university and I was able to enroll in classes for free. I fell in love with the biological sciences.
I had some really strong Christian professors who were not YEC, and I began to have hope that there may be some way to reconcile this conflict. My personal conflict eased a bit and I kind of sat on the fence for a while, unsure; thinking that if I just didn't really face it, it would just not be an issue.
The turning point for me came when I took a course called "Genes and Speciation." 1/3 of the course explored how speciation occurred, 1/3 looked at the history of the earth from a scientific view, and 1/3 spent time comparing the different views on origins. The course was taught by one of the most intelligent men I have ever met. He is also a very devout Christian and a lover of the Bible. He leads the Bible quizzing group at his church and practically has the entire Bible memorized (no seriously). When he worked out at the gym, he would have his Bible in front of him and would be memorizing scripture. He is also an amazing scientist, he has published numerous journal articles and a book on stem cell research.
One of the assignments was to read and review a YEC book. The book I choose was Jonathan Sarfati's Refuting Evolution. What I found was that not one of his "refutations" was unequivocally true. Every one of his claims was either a half truth, a misrepresentation or simply misleading. EVERY ONE! Now I realize that one book does not speak for the whole of creation science, but Sarfati is well respected in YEC circles; Refuting Evolution is a highly regarded book by YECs. And yet it is full of untruth; full of it! Not an occasional error but the entirety. (It is not the only creation science source I have explored and few of them fare any better)
This did it for me, it broke any connection I had to YEC. At this point I was unsure about how to resolve this "conflict" but I knew I was not a YEC. Do we defend the truth of the Bible with lies, half-truths, misrepresentations and made up nonsense? I can't accept that. But to a YEC, it doesn't matter how dishonest the approach is; as long as it defends the initial premise.
Faith, I write this not to convince you that I am right in my opinions, but so that you can see that it is not that I have some agenda to discredit the Bible or to shoehorn my beliefs into the Biblical account, but that I came about this position in an honest, sincere search for the truth. And this search found YEC wanting, empty of truth. And I know that there are many non-YEC Christians who have had a very similar experience as my own. As well, there are many who were unable to reconcile their faith because of YEC teaching and have fallen away.
I also want to point out that you are doing this typical YEC nonsense in this very thread. You will cling to the vapor canopy idea despite that fact that it is completely untenable. You deviate from a clear reading of the text which paints a picture far different from a vapor canopy and yet you cling to this un-Biblical idea tenaciously (NoNukes pointed out this in Message 236). And you expect anyone to buy into this?
Truly I don't expect you to become an old earther or whatever, that is not what I am trying to accomplish by having this discussion. What I want you to acknowledge is that just because I (and others) have a different approach to understanding the book of Genesis, doesn't make us non-believers. It doesn't mean we hate the Bible or want to destroy it. There is not an agenda to turn the Bible into a myth. It is a sincere, honest search to understand reality, to reconcile what Scripture says with what we observe in the physical world.
However, what I am expecting you will do is cling to your ideas like you are infallible. No quarter; no possibility of looking at this issue through someone else's eyes. I expect that you will not abandon the vapor canopy idea no matter what, because it is all you've got. I expect that you won't even really read this post because its too long and you don't really care what I have to say anyway. The only thing that matters is that you be right. So be it.
Enough about this.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 3:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 06-25-2014 12:47 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 253 of 276 (730196)
06-25-2014 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
06-24-2014 3:06 PM


Re: Retranslating Genesis
From a skim-through at Amazon I get that it's a claim that Genesis 1:1 has been mistranslated lo these many millennia. I didn't spend the time to get a clear idea of what they think it should say, just that they don't like what it says and they think a better understanding of the Hebrew will show that it means something else. A couple of Dallas seminary guys.
I'm sure you don't know enough Hebrew to judge their thinking and I certainly don't so I don't see what it would accomplish to tell me more about their conclusions.
Neat how you are able to deduce their agenda and determine they are wrong with out even reading it.
Typical.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 3:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 06-25-2014 12:12 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 257 of 276 (730211)
06-25-2014 12:16 PM


More rainfall calculations
What if it rained for forty days over the entire surface of the earth at pretty much the minimum amount that can be considered rain?
quote:
Rainfall intensity is classified according to the rate of precipitation:
Light rain when the precipitation rate is < 2.5 mm (0.098 in) per hour
Moderate rain when the precipitation rate is between 2.5 mm (0.098 in) - 7.6 mm (0.30 in) or 10 mm (0.39 in) per hour
Heavy rain when the precipitation rate is > 7.6 mm (0.30 in) per hour, or between 10 mm (0.39 in) and 50 mm (2.0 in) per hour
Violent rain when the precipitation rate is > 50 mm (2.0 in) per hour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain
a light rainfall is less than .098 inches per hour. Let's use .05" per hour, which is a very, very light rain, - really more of a drizzle.
This equals 48" of rain over a 40 day period. (.05 * 24 * 40) or 4 feet of rain total.
plugging this number into JonF's spreadsheet from Message 203 we get that the temperature at the surface of the earth after precipitation of this amount of water is:
****
And the initial temperature needed to maintain that volume of vapor is:
****
Hmmm? natural processes?
HBD
ABE: I am currently disputing these calculations for initial temperature (see Message 261), so I have removed them from this post. However, the increase in temperature that would be required of that amount of precipitation seems correct which would be an increase of 316oF. Quite significant!
Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.
Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.
Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.
Edited by herebedragons, : corrected "change in temperature" value in deg F

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 258 of 276 (730212)
06-25-2014 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Faith
06-25-2014 12:12 PM


Re: Retranslating Genesis
against the general opinion of the whole Christian community today
Of course, the "Christian community" is only those who are YEC. Those with other opinions are outside the Christian community.
and when you like their opinion because it helps you justify your belief in the Old Earth
I want to know the truth. If the truth is that the earth is young, I'll go with that. It doesn't seem to be the case. I don't need to justify any belief, I need to understand reality. I didn't start out with the belief that the earth is old, so no need to look for a way to justify it.
You are the one trying to justify your beliefs by coming up with wacky notions about vapor canopies and sedimentation that defies physics, ect, ect.
it's not a great leap to conclude they are most likely wrong.
Of course not, all those who disagree ...
If you at all cared about the truth, you would find that they talk nothing about the age of the earth in that book, other than to mention that it is a controversy in our churches today. Their premise is to look at the story of Genesis 1 in the context of how the original author and the original audience would have understood it.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 06-25-2014 12:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 06-25-2014 1:06 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 261 of 276 (730219)
06-25-2014 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by JonF
06-23-2014 1:21 PM


Re: Working with real data
Jon, I was fooling around with your spreadsheet and I tried to figure out what the smallest amount of water that could be plugged in and get a livable temperature. Even at very, very low numbers (10^-24) the temperature still needs to 100oC. This can't be right. Water vapor does exist in the atmosphere even below that temperature. At 20oC, saturation is something like 2%, so a considerable amount of water vapor should exist even at 20oC.
I am not sure how to remedy this. I think it may involve a more complex calculation.
Wikipedia says that
quote:
The percentage water vapor in surface air varies from .01% at -42oC; to 4.24% when the dew point is 30oC.
So perhaps after saturation reaches 4.24%@30oC (maximum saturation at 1 atm) , the temperature will need to increase significantly in order to force more water vapor into the atmosphere. I am not really sure.
Maybe another thing to figure would be if the atmosphere was completely saturated with water (ie 4.24%) what would the total volume be and how deep would it cover the surface.
Also
quote:
The mean annual precipitation for the planet is about 1 meter
Which would be about .36 feet in 40 days. It could certainly rain at that rate with out the temperature being significantly different.
The calculation for increase in temperature after condensation seems right, though, and that alone should be enough to show that raining 60 feet of water is untenable.
HBD
ABE: actually I found another error in the calculation of the conversion from change in temp oC to change in temp in oF. For every 1 degree change in oC, oF changes by 1.8 degrees. What you have to do is convert BEFORE subtracting. So for example, a change from 1oC to 0oC would be a change from 33.8oF to 32oF, a change of 1.8o.
Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by JonF, posted 06-23-2014 1:21 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by JonF, posted 06-26-2014 6:56 AM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 273 of 276 (730384)
06-27-2014 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by JonF
06-26-2014 6:56 AM


Re: Working with real data
Clear as mud?
Sure. I understand how phase diagrams work; that is not the issue I was objecting to. What I was saying is that your spread sheet says that for there to be ANY vapor in the atmosphere, the temperature would need to be 100oC. We know that is not the case as there is water vapor in the atmosphere at normal temperatures.
So I am not overly convinced of the Temperature required to maintain that water as vapor calculations. I suppose that once water vapor exceeds the saturation point (past equilibrium point), it would require temperatures over 100oC to maintain that high level of water vapor.
The C to F conversions are correct, multiplication and division take precedence over addition.
Yes, they are correct if you are converting absolute temperatures from oC to oF. However , in cell A20, you are converting a change in oC to a change in oF. For this conversion, the formula is [delta]oC * 1.8 = [delta]oF.
For example, a 10oC change in temp converted to oF, say from 10oC to 20oC.
10oC = 50oF
20oC = 68oF
68oF - 50oF = 18oF
So, a 10oC change in temp is an 18oF change, not 50o that you would get if you converted using a standard (oC * 9/5)+32 conversion.
Anyway, I tried a slightly different approach to this problem. I calculated the total volume of the atmosphere and calculated the total amount of water that could be vapor in the atmosphere if the entire troposphere was at 4.25% saturation. At saturation levels greater than 4.25%, water begins to condense and precipitate out.
The volume of the troposphere is about 3.0e20 ft3 so, 4.25% yields 1.28e19 ft3 of water vapor which converts to 1.03e16 ft3 of liquid water. This is enough to cover the surface of the earth to a depth of 2 feet! Using your spreadsheet calculation, this would raise the temperature of the earth 105oC (189oF).
I also found this source The USGS Water Science School that says:
quote:
One estimate of the volume of water in the atmosphere at any one time is about 3,100 cubic miles (mi3) or 12,900 cubic kilometers (km3). That may sound like a lot, but it is only about 0.001 percent of the total Earth's water volume of about 332,500,000 mi3 (1,385,000,000 km3), as shown in the table below. If all of the water in the atmosphere rained down at once, it would only cover the globe to a depth of 2.5 centimeters, about 1 inch.
My calculations above are 23 times the actual estimated volume according to the USGS and still can’t come even close to covering anything close to a mountain.
HBD
Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by JonF, posted 06-26-2014 6:56 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by JonF, posted 06-28-2014 11:11 AM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 275 of 276 (730508)
06-28-2014 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by JonF
06-28-2014 11:11 AM


Re: Working with real data
my spreadsheet is not saying that it must be 100 C to have any water vapor in the atmosphere. It must be 100C for liquid water to not exist in the atmosphere.
Yeah, that's what I gathered after figuring how much vapor could actually exist in the atmosphere under normal conditions. When you are calculating the water vapor to produce 60 - 4000 feet of rain, the water vapor that is in the atmosphere initially is insignificant.
I'll go into this more
No need. It makes sense to me.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by JonF, posted 06-28-2014 11:11 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by JonF, posted 06-29-2014 10:54 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024