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:   How Hard Was it Raining During the Flood? Could the Ark Survive?
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 46 of 125 (333535)
07-19-2006 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Coragyps
07-19-2006 8:24 PM


Coragyps writes:
That "under" is still the water beneath the disc of the whole immobile (pillar-supported?) earth, though.
Yes. The Bible seems to imply that (much of) it went back down there after the flood. Maybe the giant turtle drank the rest.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Coragyps, posted 07-19-2006 8:24 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 47 of 125 (333557)
07-19-2006 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Chief Infidel
07-19-2006 5:06 AM


One commentary on the mountain height
David Guzik at Blue Letter Bible
b. And the mountains were covered: This took a lot of water, but there is plenty of water on the earth today to do this - but because of the topography of the earth, the water is collected into oceans. If the earth were a perfect sphere, the oceans would cover the land to a depth of two-and-a-half to three miles. Before the cataclysmic flood, the earth may have been much nearer to a perfect sphere.
By which I take it he means the oceans were shallow, which would mean the fountains of the deep were QUITE deep.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Chief Infidel, posted 07-19-2006 5:06 AM Chief Infidel has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by anglagard, posted 07-19-2006 10:42 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 49 by Coragyps, posted 07-19-2006 10:43 PM Faith has replied
 Message 51 by Discreet Label, posted 07-19-2006 10:48 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 61 by deerbreh, posted 07-20-2006 11:46 AM Faith has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 48 of 125 (333562)
07-19-2006 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
07-19-2006 10:10 PM


Re: One commentary on the mountain height
By which I take it he means the oceans were shallow, which would mean the fountains of the deep were QUITE deep.
...and therefore quite superheated if existence of gravity is assumed. Probably more than sufficient to increase atmospheric temperatures enough to destroy all life for a considerable amount of time.
Too bad the ark isn't described as having a force field ala Star Trek, then you may have a case under the laws of science.
Sorry, the story and science simply don't work together. It's either Noah as parable or hundreds of years of scientific evidence collected by people, many who were/are devoutly religious, seeking to understand the way God/nature works.
The only other way out is last Thursdayism.
Edited by anglagard, : clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 10:10 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Coragyps, posted 07-19-2006 10:45 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 49 of 125 (333563)
07-19-2006 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
07-19-2006 10:10 PM


Re: One commentary on the mountain height
...which would mean the fountains of the deep were QUITE deep.
Not that I follow your logic, but deep means hot. 15 degrees per 1000 feet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 10:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 11:49 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 50 of 125 (333564)
07-19-2006 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by anglagard
07-19-2006 10:42 PM


Re: One commentary on the mountain height
Too bad the ark isn't described as having a force field ala Star Trek
Has Anglagard discovered the true meaning of "gopher wood?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by anglagard, posted 07-19-2006 10:42 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by CK, posted 07-20-2006 4:03 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5064 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 51 of 125 (333565)
07-19-2006 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
07-19-2006 10:10 PM


Re: One commentary on the mountain height
I dunno the validity of this but in terms of the fountains of the deep which sound like very large and deep holes, could you not also say that the earth (meaning a variety of mountains etc.) also simultanouesly collapsed into these holes?
Of course that would play merry hell with the geological ages of the rock and you end up with some changes in the ages of the rocks youngest on the bottom and then you'd have a ton of old exposed rock...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 10:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 52 of 125 (333573)
07-19-2006 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Coragyps
07-19-2006 10:43 PM


Re: One commentary on the mountain height
...which would mean the fountains of the deep were QUITE deep.
Not that I follow your logic, but deep means hot. 15 degrees per 1000 feet.
Words are tricky things. I didn't mean deep as in located deeper than we'd been saying already, I meant deep as in lots of volume to it, more depth from top to bottom. Only its lower regions would have been close to the hot depths, upper regions well above the core temperatures, just as the upper regions of present-day oceans are. So it's not like what was released from the "fountains" was necessarily this superheated water that hung out near the core, it was more like an ocean beneath a shallow ocean. Perhaps a warmer ocean, but not necessarily steaming geysers straight from the hot core of the earth.
So, if David Guzik is right, and the earth was closer to a sphere, then the ocean would have been very shallow, and BENEATH it there would have been a lot more depth (=volume) of "fountains of the deep" than I had been picturing before. I hope I'm getting this across. I already pictured shallow ocean to accommodate water beneath the ocean floor, but his remarks suggest MUCH shallower ocean, which suggests MUCH deeper (from top to bottom) of the sub-floor water that became the "fountains."
I'm trying my best to convey how I understood what he was saying. Hope it worked.
{edit: I'm sure it's impossible but then everything so far has been. I don't know what would divide these layers of water or how that could happen, but this is how I pictured what Guzik said.}
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Coragyps, posted 07-19-2006 10:43 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 07-20-2006 11:04 AM Faith has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 53 of 125 (333613)
07-20-2006 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Chief Infidel
07-19-2006 5:06 AM


Instead of trying to come up with some exact mathematical formula for what is at best a very approximate estimate, let's look at this from a scientific view. The first rule of doing good science when addressing a problem like this is to simplify, simplify, simplify! So let's consider the simplest analog of this problem. Suppose you have a 40 gallon barrel that is half full of water, i. e., has 20 gallons in it. You also have a one gallon bucket that you want to use to fill the barrel by dipping the bucket into the barrel, scooping out a gallon of water, and then pouring this bucketful back into the barrel. If can can do this 10 times per minute, that is, scoop out and pour back in one gallon every six seconds, how long will it take you to fill the barrel? We now see the power of simplification: you don't actually need to do much math to figure this out.
And we also see that the bible authors simply didn't understand the hydrology cycle that is now taught in third grade. If god wrote the bible, he certainly was not omniscient. The ancients didn't understand that when a tray of water was left out in the sun, it didn't just disappear into nonexistence, but that it changed into a gaseous form. They had no idea that rain actually came from evaporated sea water. Living so close to the equator, most of them probably had never seen the solid form of water either, and if you tried to explain the freezing and vaporization processes to them, they would have thought you to be a deranged cultist. Rain could only come from some window that opened in the sky.
As for the waters welling up from the deep: in the US or Europe, when we watch a news broadcast about a major river flooding, it is always associated with torrential rains in the flood area. However, in the Middle East, which is vitally dependent on seasonal river floods for irrigation, the rivers, such as the Nile, Jordan, Euphrates, or Tigris, flooding usually happens without any visible rain. One warm spring day the river just starts rising even though there hasn't been any rain, and maybe not even any clouds for several days. The river just keeps rising and rushing until it overflows its banks and causes major flooding. This river rise is due of course to snow melting or rain in mountain watersheds that can be hundreds of miles away. This also happens in mountain states like California where major spring flooding often occurs on otherwise delightful sunny days. So, how does one explain the river rise if one knows nothing about the mountain snow melt? It is obviously do to water welling up from the deep. And that means that there must be vast amounts of water beneath the earth's surface (as well as above the dome of the sky).
It is interesting that these ancients could easily conceive that water left out in a pan would just disappear into nothingness, i. e., that no conservation of matter principle applied, but still need a conservation of matter to explain the river rise: the water had to come from somewhere and couldn't just form out of nothing. Apparently , on the day this story was first written, not even god could just create the water he needed out of nothing.
Regards, AnInGe
------------------------------------------------------
Ignorance is not bliss. It is just ignorance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Chief Infidel, posted 07-19-2006 5:06 AM Chief Infidel has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by deerbreh, posted 07-20-2006 11:14 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 54 of 125 (333616)
07-20-2006 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Coragyps
07-19-2006 10:45 PM


Re: One commentary on the mountain height
Cough - I did solve the last ark problem (how to feed the animals) with some Star trek technology.
God constructed the NCC-1700 USS ARK. Noah then just flew around the earth at near light speed and that meant the animals never needed to be fed.Then Noah just used the transporter to beam them down where they needed to be.
Indeed the show itself is based on our race memories of the event.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Coragyps, posted 07-19-2006 10:45 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Chief Infidel
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 125 (333618)
07-20-2006 4:14 AM


Ladies and Gentlemen!
Let's not lose focus here. I'm really interested in the volume of rainfall/fountain flow and rate at which the water rose, not the absurdity of the story in general.
Does any have a reasonable suggestion as to how high the mountains of Noah's time were?

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by CK, posted 07-20-2006 5:12 AM Chief Infidel has not replied
 Message 57 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 07-20-2006 5:32 AM Chief Infidel has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 56 of 125 (333620)
07-20-2006 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Chief Infidel
07-20-2006 4:14 AM


Well since it was suppose to be 5000 years ago - however high the mountains are now. Otherwise you might as well just make up any figures you like - what's the difference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Chief Infidel, posted 07-20-2006 4:14 AM Chief Infidel has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 57 of 125 (333622)
07-20-2006 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Chief Infidel
07-20-2006 4:14 AM


The creationists are absolutely correct that the tallest mountains were much shorter in Noah's time than they are now. Googling on "Indian Plate Himalayas rising" brings up this site: http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/geology.html as the first hit. (I'll figure out your hot links format soon.) This site tells us: "The Indian plate is continuously moving north at the rate of about 2 cms every year. Because of this reason the Himalayas are rising at the rate of about 5 millimeter per year." Thus, Everest was a good 2000 centimeters lower 4000 years ago. That's about 120 feet. The water only had to rise 28,940' to be 30' above the tallest mountain, which now makes the whole story much more credible.
The point of my last post is that the Noah story was totally credible in its time. I was also responding to your request in message 3.
Regards, AnInGe
----------------------------------
Ignorance is not bliss. It is just ignorance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Chief Infidel, posted 07-20-2006 4:14 AM Chief Infidel has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by deerbreh, posted 07-20-2006 11:27 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 58 of 125 (333714)
07-20-2006 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
07-19-2006 11:49 PM


Double double, toil and trouble
fire burn and caldron bubble.
Heat a pot of water. Is it hotter at the top of the pot or the bottom.
Couple points Faith. First, water is a better conductor of heat than rock, so the temperature differential between the top and bottom of the fountains of the deep would be nill.
Second, there is no evidence that David Guzik is right. What he is doing is building in the land of makebelieve. There, anything is possible.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 11:49 PM Faith has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 59 of 125 (333718)
07-20-2006 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by AnswersInGenitals
07-20-2006 3:06 AM


answers writes:
... in the Middle East, which is vitally dependent on seasonal river floods for irrigation, the rivers, such as the Nile, Jordan, Euphrates, or Tigris, flooding usually happens without any visible rain. One warm spring day the river just starts rising even though there hasn't been any rain, and maybe not even any clouds for several days. The river just keeps rising and rushing until it overflows its banks and causes major flooding. This river rise is due of course to snow melting or rain in mountain watersheds that can be hundreds of miles away. This also happens in mountain states like California where major spring flooding often occurs on otherwise delightful sunny days. So, how does one explain the river rise if one knows nothing about the mountain snow melt? It is obviously do to water welling up from the deep. And that means that there must be vast amounts of water beneath the earth's surface (as well as above the dome of the sky).
By George I think he's got it. So, if we say that the "fountains of the deep" are actually snow melt, then we need some historical estimate of the maximum flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Actually we are in luck. I found a reference which discusses the Tigris River. Apparently the Tigris is subject to more catastrophic flooding than the Euphrates and the record is a rise of 27 feet in 1954.
http://www.jameswbell.com/a008thetigrisriver.html
So let's be conservative and double that - let's say it is possible to explain a 54 foot rise in water from mountain snow melt. Then it started to rain. How fast did the rain come down to pile up enough water to cover Everest with 15 cubits (30 feet) in 40 days. If we make the snow melt (fountains of the deep) 58 feet, we are left with exactly 29,000 feet of water in 40 days or 960 hours.
29,000/960 = 30.2 feet/hour or roughly 6 inches/minute. Seems like we had that before but this time it is all rain. Hopefully the ark roof did not leak and the deck was completely covered. Otherwise that baby is going to sink the first hour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 07-20-2006 3:06 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 60 of 125 (333721)
07-20-2006 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by AnswersInGenitals
07-20-2006 5:32 AM


I had it all figured out, but noooooo!
Ok, let's use the new numbers.
Snow melt (fountains of the deep) = max of 54 feet.
28,940 - 54 = 28,886 ft
28,886/960 = 30.1 feet/hour - much more likely!
Actually still approximately 6 inches per minute.
Maybe the pitch will keep the roof from leaking for the first 20 days or so? So the ark won't sink until day 21.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 07-20-2006 5:32 AM AnswersInGenitals 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