Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood- one explanation
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 106 of 129 (74252)
12-19-2003 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by roxrkool
12-18-2003 5:16 PM


Re: Creationists
Roxrkool:
Good question. In thread I started a while back, I pointed out that in addition to all of the other problems with the idea of Noah and the flood, altitude would also come into play. Crashfrog dismissed the idea with a similar phrase to this one:
crashfrog writes:
It does, though, raise the air column by the same amount, so that Everest now is at an atmospheric pressure equivalent to the old zero feet above sea level. That is, if we're talking about a global rise in sea level. A localized rise would have no such effect, of course.
Now, nothing against crashfrog, but to dismiss the idea that Noah and the animals would have had a very hard time surviving at over 29,000 feet, by claiming that the atmosphere would be essentially the same as it was at zero feet because the rising ocean levels would "push" the air column up as well, seems a bit simplistic. It is, after all, a relatively small increase in altitude (just over 8 km) in comparison to the height of the atmosphere. For example, the mesoshpere (the coldest layer) ranges between 50-80 km while the thermoshpere reaches altitudes of up to 100km, so we're talking about a pretty small increase here.
However, I also realize that the atmospheric layers differ in their relative densities and that the troposphere (the lowest layer, with a depth of 8-16 km) contains about 80% of the total mass of the atmosphere. So who knows (certainly not me), maybe crashfrog is correct.
So I guess I'm asking the same question. What about it? Would raising the ocean levels up to just over 29,000 feet have a major impact on the atmoshpere? That is to say, would Noah and company not have to worry about extremely low temperatures, relatively low oxygen levels, altitude sicknesses, and the many other problems associated with high altitudes because they would be bobbing around in their boat at a "new" sea level and things would be the basically the same as they were at the previous sea level?
I have my doubts, but in all honesty, I'm not sure how to do the calculations. I'm sure that conditions at the "new" 29,000 feet would have been somewhat better than they were at the "old" 29,000 feet, but I have serious doubts that they would have significantly improved.
Anyway, it would be nice if this question could be answered by someone out there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by roxrkool, posted 12-18-2003 5:16 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by gene90, posted 12-19-2003 12:51 PM FliesOnly has replied

NeilUnreal
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 129 (74259)
12-19-2003 12:38 PM


quote:
Abshalom: please inform me as to whether I should exit the Large Door or the Small Door.
"Just one key unlocks them both, it's there at your command."
Peace, Merry Christmas, and season's greetings!
Neil

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Abshalom, posted 12-19-2003 3:50 PM NeilUnreal has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 108 of 129 (74260)
12-19-2003 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Itachi Uchiha
12-19-2003 12:08 PM


Re: an introductory article on the grand canyon from the creationist side
This topic is a rather big mess.
I think the Grand Canyon stuff definitely belongs somewhere else. I suggest you start a new topic.
Or you may wish to look at the existing Grand Canyon topics.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-19-2003 12:08 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 109 of 129 (74261)
12-19-2003 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Itachi Uchiha
12-19-2003 12:08 PM


Re: an introductory article on the grand canyon from the creationist side
Hey Jazzlover,
Rather than cutting and pasting from YEC sites why don't you try using your own arguments? For example you could piece together your scenario of Grand Canyon formation and use the article as a reference. That way I could debate *you* instead of Austin, who is not present here to argue with us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-19-2003 12:08 PM Itachi Uchiha has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-19-2003 3:20 PM gene90 has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 110 of 129 (74265)
12-19-2003 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by FliesOnly
12-19-2003 12:13 PM


Re: Creationists
quote:
So I guess I'm asking the same question. What about it? Would raising the ocean levels up to just over 29,000 feet have a major impact on the atmoshpere?
Why would it? If I dug 29,000 feet of crust off the planet and sent it somewhere else, so that every point on Earth is now 29,000 ft lower, what difference would it be to the atmosphere? It would simply move in closer, and be under slightly more pressure because it is now 29,000 ft closer to the Earth's center of gravity. Further, if I pushed the bottom of the atmosphere up 29,000 feet the effect would be the same, and still minimal.
Suppose I have a glass tube that's 30,000 ft tall. The base of the tube is at sea level. The pressure stratification of the atmosphere inside is identical to the stratification outside. I seal both ends and carry it up to the summit of Everest. The same amount of air is still in the tube, and it is still stratified. The air at the base of the sealed tube is nearly at the same pressure it was at when the tube was at sea level. The slight difference is because the air is now further away from Earth's center, and, to put the difference in perspective, is directly proportional to the difference of my own weight at this altitude.
We instinctively believe that there must be "some" significant difference because of our personal experiences that the air at altitude is "different". But that misleads us under these conditions.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-19-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by FliesOnly, posted 12-19-2003 12:13 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by FliesOnly, posted 12-19-2003 1:35 PM gene90 has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 111 of 129 (74281)
12-19-2003 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by gene90
12-19-2003 12:51 PM


Re: Creationists
Hello Gene90:
gene90 writes:
Why would it? If I dug 29,000 feet of crust off the planet and sent it somewhere else, so that every point on Earth is now 29,000 ft lower, what difference would it be to the atmosphere? It would simply move in closer, and be under slightly more pressure because it is now 29,000 ft closer to the Earth's center of gravity. Further, if I pushed the bottom of the atmosphere up 29,000 feet the effect would be the same, and still minimal.
Is this indeed the case? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, I really don't know. I'm sure there would be an affect, but I have no idea how much of one, nor how to calculate the amount.
However, I'm in agreement that the change would be insignificant, which again brings up the questions of how Noah would have dealt with the problems associated with high altitudes...correct?
So rather than simply dismissing the questions I asked earlier, I would like to hear a creationist explain how Noah and his buddies got around these problems. Please note, I am not conceding that a global flood occurred. I am simply asking, that since you claim the Earth was flooded, how did Noah, his family, and the animals survive? I don't care about how the animals got to the boat. I don't care about how the animals dispersed after the flood. I don't care about explanations dealing with where the water came from and where it has since gone. These questions (and many others about global flood problems) have been addressed in other threads. I want a creationist to explain how Noah overcame all the problems associated with high altitudes. I have never seen these problems addressed and I am curious as to your explanations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by gene90, posted 12-19-2003 12:51 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by NosyNed, posted 12-19-2003 1:54 PM FliesOnly has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 112 of 129 (74285)
12-19-2003 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by FliesOnly
12-19-2003 1:35 PM


Insignificant
Is this indeed the case? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, I really don't know. I'm sure there would be an affect, but I have no idea how much of one, nor how to calculate the amount.
However, I'm in agreement that the change would be insignificant, which again brings up the questions of how Noah would have dealt with the problems associated with high altitudes...correct?
You missed the point of the post that you copied from Gene90.
Your two lines above also are a bit contradictory. You have "no idea" of how to arrive at what the affect would be but "I'm in agreement...".
Gene90 is saying that moving the whole mass of the atmosphere 29,000 feet closer to or further away from the centre of mass of the planet would have an insignificant affect on the air pressure at the new "sea levels".
I'm not going to do the calculations but you know that gravitation force varies with the inverse square of the distance from the center of mass of the attracting body. (as long as you're outside the body).
So what is the difference in the square of the earth's radius and the earth's radius plus or minus 29,000 feet? That is a way to get an idea of what the affect would be.
In the case of the atmosphere being lifted the fact that it would stay the same total mass( well sort of there are a lot of things going on) and be spread over slightly more area might also have an affect but the reduced gravitational pull would make zippo difference.
The high altitude affect is there because if we climb to the top of everest today we are leaving more than 2/3 of the atmosphere behind us -- underneath us. In the case of wrapping the globe in 29,000 feet of water the entire atmosphere would still be above us and pressing down nearly as hard as it does at todays sea level.
This is my reasoning why there is no altitude problem for Noah.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by FliesOnly, posted 12-19-2003 1:35 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by FliesOnly, posted 12-19-2003 2:17 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 116 by roxrkool, posted 12-19-2003 2:37 PM NosyNed has not replied

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2532 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 113 of 129 (74291)
12-19-2003 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by crashfrog
12-16-2003 12:27 AM


Tiahuanaco / Tiwanaku
In message 13 John Paul commented:
Member
"12-16-2003 12:15 AM
(sic) Tiahunaco- don't just ignore it.
A port/ habour city that now sits at
12,000 ft. above the sea it was once
connected to."
The claim that the "Tiahuanaco," site, correctly called the Tiawanku site, was a port at one time was argued by Arthur Posnansky about 60 years ago in:
Posnansky, Arthur, 1943, Tihuanacu: the
Cradle of American Man. J. J. Augustin
Publisher, New York.
What various catastrophists and Young Earth creationists, who haven't research what they discussing, ignore is that archaeological research done since Posnansky published the above monograph, has completely discredited and refuted the claim that Tiwanaku ever was a port. Tiahuanaco / Tiwanaku was never either a port or harbor. The wharfs and other port facilities described by Posnansky have been found to exist only in his imagination. In fact, some of them are not even man-made structures. A detailed discussion of this can be found on the MA'AT messageboard in the thread "Re: Tiwanaku: Alternative History in Action" at
Page not found
If a person looks through Posnansky'smonograph, he or she will find that he doesn't provide any hard evidence that what he identified as port facilities are indeed port facilities. The reader is left, as a matter of faith, to accept that his interpretations are correct.
Other articles about Tiwanaku can be found using their search engine at:
Page not found
John Paul wrote"
"Its agricultural fields now at an
altitude where barely anything will
grow never mind support a civilization."
This simply isn't true. Research done by Alan Kolata on agricultural fields around Tiahuanaco / Tiwanaku demonstrated that are perfectly usable for growing potatoes in modern times and were capable of supporting Tiahuanaco / Tiwanaku. Some web pages of interest are:
Ancient Agriculture at Tiwanaku (by Brian Fagan)
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/...logy/lost_tribes/Tiwanaku.html
"The rediscovery of these ancient
farming techniques is paying off
handsomely among the Aymara. About
1,200 farmers have now redeveloped
raised fields and at least another 50
villages want training in prehistoric
agriculture. The local diet is
improving dramatically, for fish
and ducks in the canals provide added
nutrition in a country where over
half the children suffer from
malnutrition."
Contrary to what John Paul stated, the raised fields systems found around Tiahuanaco / Tiwanaku are quite capable, despite the altitude, for the production of an abundance of potatoes, fish, and ducks and when properly managed. In fact, the ridged fields are very well designed for protecting potatoes from the frequent frosts typical of the local cold climate. Go read:
1. Erickson, C. L., 1988, Putting Ancient
Agriculture Back to Work. Expedition.
Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 8-16.
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cerickso/articles/Exped.pdf
2. Raised-Bed Irrigation at Tiwanaku, Bolivia
WaterHistory.org
http://www.waterhistory.org/histories/tiwanaku/tiwanaku.pdf
and
Denevan, W. M., K. Mathewson, and G.
Knapp, eds., 1987, Pre-Hispanic Ridged
Fields in the Andean Region. Vol. 359
(ii). Oxford: BAR International Series.
Kolata, A., 1996, Tiwanaku and its
Hinterland: Archaeology and Paleoecology
of an Andean Civilization. Vol. 1:
Agroecology: Smithsonian Institution Press.
in a later message, message 16, crashfrog wrote:
(John Paul) wrote)
"A port/ habour city that now sits at 12,000 ft.
"above the sea it was once connected to.
crashfrom wrote:
"There's a lake, Titicaca - maybe you've heard
of it? The highest big lake in the world? On
the shores of which Tiahunacao is located?
Is it possible, perhaps, that Tiahunacao has
never been the harbor of any ocean, but
rather for enormous Lake Titicaca?
Just a thought."
It is true that Tiahuanaco / Tiwanaku lies adjacent to Lake Titicaca. However, the fact of the matter is that Tiahuanaco / Tiwanaku was never either a harbor or port at all. It doesn't even lie on a recognizable shoreline. Arthur Posnansky mistook natural landforms and man-made structures for wharfs and other port facilities. He also mistook the rim, on which Tiahuanaco / Tiwanaku lies, of a river valley created by the downcutting of a river for a lake shoreline. For more information go look at:
Kolata, A., 1996, Tiwanaku and its
Hinterland: Archaeology and Paleoecology
of an Andean Civilization. Vol. 1:
Agroecology: Smithsonian Institution Press.
John Paul wrote:
"Its agricultural fields now at an altitude
where barely anything will grow never mind
support a civilization."
crashfrog wrote:
"You grow what you can, where you live. I
doubt their soil is any less fertile than
most of Russia but they've had agriculture
- and a civilization - there for a very
long time. Maybe you need to quantify how
much agriculture you think it takes, at
the minimum, to support a civilization."
As noted above, numerous archaeological studies have demonstrated that the ridge field systems found around Tiahuanaco / Tiwanaku were perfectly capable of producing enough food to have fed the civilization supporting Tiahuanaco / Tiwanaku. In fact, the ridge fields are remarkably and expertly engineered for the growing of potatoes for the local altitude and climatic condition during both the presence and when Tiahuanaco / Tiwanaku was occupied.
frogcrash commented:
"(You did say it was a habor town.
Maybe they shipped the food in?)"
1. Tiahuanaco / Tiwanaku never was a port.
2. The ridged field systems are quite capable of growing sufficient food to have supported the Tiahuanaco / Tiwanaku civilization and are currently proving quite capable of growing food, fish, and ducks at this time.
Yours,
Bill Birkeland

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2003 12:27 AM crashfrog has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 114 of 129 (74292)
12-19-2003 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by NosyNed
12-19-2003 1:54 PM


Re: Insignificant
NosyNed:
Ok wait...I'm an idiot, and admit that I am a bit embarrassed. Yes, it is actually very easy to see why there would be no altitude problem faced by Noah. If I could somehow retract my pervious posts I would. I have seen the light! Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by NosyNed, posted 12-19-2003 1:54 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by NosyNed, posted 12-19-2003 2:33 PM FliesOnly has not replied
 Message 117 by roxrkool, posted 12-19-2003 2:39 PM FliesOnly has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 115 of 129 (74296)
12-19-2003 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by FliesOnly
12-19-2003 2:17 PM


not to worry
How many time have I missed some obvious point? Don't answer that!! I don't want to know.
I would like a count on posts on this site that express something like yours. How many of us have posted "I was wrong!".
We have had 2 or 3 of the "approximately creationist" side manage that recently. I believe it is harder for them to do that and so am very impressed when they do.
A count, by side of the debate, would still be interesting though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by FliesOnly, posted 12-19-2003 2:17 PM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by gene90, posted 12-19-2003 2:47 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 120 by Rei, posted 12-19-2003 2:53 PM NosyNed has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 116 of 129 (74297)
12-19-2003 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by NosyNed
12-19-2003 1:54 PM


Re: Insignificant
Okay, I think I got the gist of everyone's arguments, but just want to make sure.
It sounds like everyone now agrees that a global rise in sea level WOULD have the effect of *pushing* the atmosphere higher, thus allowing sea level pressures even as high as the summit of Mt. Everest. Correct? This makes sense to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by NosyNed, posted 12-19-2003 1:54 PM NosyNed has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 117 of 129 (74298)
12-19-2003 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by FliesOnly
12-19-2003 2:17 PM


Re: Insignificant
Right there with ya!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by FliesOnly, posted 12-19-2003 2:17 PM FliesOnly has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 118 of 129 (74300)
12-19-2003 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by NosyNed
12-19-2003 2:33 PM


Re: not to worry
quote:
A count, by side of the debate, would still be interesting though.
I sill feel bad for "accidentally" stating that ice is denser than liquid water...and being caught.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by NosyNed, posted 12-19-2003 2:33 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by NosyNed, posted 12-19-2003 2:53 PM gene90 has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 119 of 129 (74303)
12-19-2003 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by gene90
12-19-2003 2:47 PM


fun getting caught
But that is what is fun here. You can't get away with anything!
I get a little tired sometimes when individuals argue some stupid little point to death (NOT naming names) but it is part of the cost of knowing that you can't cheat and get careless.
------------------
Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by gene90, posted 12-19-2003 2:47 PM gene90 has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 120 of 129 (74304)
12-19-2003 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by NosyNed
12-19-2003 2:33 PM


Re: not to worry
I think I've done perhaps 4-6 "I was wrong"'s on EvC Forum. And I agree - I'm sure it's harder for them than us, so I have a lot of admiration for a creationist willing to admit when they were wrong.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by NosyNed, posted 12-19-2003 2:33 PM NosyNed 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