• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Geological and archaeological evidence for/against the flood/CTE

AvalonXQ said:
Happy to be linked to calculations on the subject.
Click to expand...

Air can hold, at most, 55 grams of water vapor per cubic meter. In contrast, liquid water is at a density of 1,000,000 grams per cubic meter. The ratio of the two numbers is 1:18,000. Therefore, a flood of 1 mile thickness (which would cover only 1/5 of Mount Everest), would require 18,000 miles of canopy. Besides the problem of gravity (which would bring the whole thing down), such a thick layer of water vapor would completely block any light from the Sun from reaching the earth.

Even a canopy of the equivalent of only 40 feet of liquid water would double the earth's atmospheric pressure, which would kill many animals, including humans. This pressure would also increase the temperature on the earth to a scorching 220°F. Most animals and plants do not survive long at this temperature.

Another problem is getting the water out of the atmosphere and onto the ground without cooking everything on the earth. Each gram of water vapor that condenses to a liquid releases 539 calories of heat. For a vapor canopy to produce a global water layer of only 40 feet deep, 6.22 x 1021 grams of water would release 3.35 x 1024 calories, raising the temperature of the earth to 810°F. Such a scenario would definitely kill all life on earth, but would produce a tremendous air conditioning problem for Noah. And a 40 feet deep flood would certainly not be global.
Click to expand...

From here: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/canopy.html

I'd be happy to be linked to calculations on the subject showing how it would be possible.

Any other mechanism? None of the ones you've proposed work.
 
Isn't the vapor canopy basically part of Sumerian or Egyptian mythology? Not sure which exactly.
 
Marduk said:
what would be the point, if you were shown calculations that conclusively proved that the flood was impossible, you wouldn't change your beliefs one iota
Click to expand...

If I came to understand the global flood to be impossible, it would absolutely change my beliefs -- although I'm not entirely certain in what way.
 
RoboTimbo said:
From here: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/canopy.html

I'd be happy to be linked to calculations on the subject showing how it would be possible.
Click to expand...
No, I find the calculations there convincing.

Any other mechanism? None of the ones you've proposed work.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I'm not convinced you've established the problems with the CPT mechanism. Like I said, its proponents have already addressed the problems you've brought up. The simulations still appear to produce viable results. They even take temperatures into account.
 
AvalonXQ said:
If the oceans massively ejected water into the air, wouldn't that be sufficient to cover all the land in a flood? There's a heck of a lot less water needed to completely cover the land than there is in the oceans.
Remember enough water, falling quick enough, will cause a flood even if there's a place for the water to go eventually (that is, back to the oceans).
Click to expand...
.
Considering Everest as the benchmark for being covered in the Flood, at 6 miles high, there has to be sufficient water available to fill the volume of space between the surface of the earth and 6 miles higher.
There isn't that amount of water existent.
And, where would it have gone?
The evaporation has been shown to be capable of boiling everything on earth, regardless of the Ark, had "the fountains of the deep" erupted.
The "vapor canopy" postulated as another source of the water would have been so dense that the pressure on the surface of the earth would squash everything there, and so thick that sunlight couldn't pass through it, and the albedo of the earth with a solid covering of water would reflect all the sunlight that hits it.
IOW, before the Flood, there would be NO day or night at all when considering the thickness of the canopy, and the surface pressure required to keep it above the surface.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Catastrophic plate tectonics. Rapid subduction of the entire ocean floor, causing massive supersonic jets of steam to launch into the atmosphere, returning to the surface over the next month.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be simpler and more germane to simply call it magic, seeing as such a tectonic event is impossible ?

I'd also like to point out the fact that there IS NO EVIDENCE for such a flood.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Mechanisms have been identified for removing the heat, and advocates dispute the heat calculation measurements in the first place.


Sure -- a pre-flood water canopy.
Click to expand...

Explaining an impossible event that requires unknown entities by using other impossible events that require unknown entities is the hallmark of woo.
 
AvalonXQ said:
No, I find the calculations there convincing.


Sorry, but I'm not convinced you've established the problems with the CPT mechanism. Like I said, its proponents have already addressed the problems you've brought up. The simulations still appear to produce viable results. They even take temperatures into account.
Click to expand...

You've not shown any refutations that don't rely on magic. I specifically asked you and wasn't given any. You've proposed a global flood for which there is no geological evidence using a mechanism which relies on magic both for its production and its aftermath.

It isn't a question of me convincing you. That is an attempted reversal of the burden of proof, wouldn't you agree? So, do you have anything at all that would be compelling evidence for a global flood and for a mechanism by which it could occur?

None of the mechanisms you've proposed work. Any others?
 
Belz... said:
I'd also like to point out the fact that there IS NO EVIDENCE for such a flood.
Click to expand...

Its advocates list several geological phenomena as evidence, and particularly as things that their theory explains better than gradual plate tectonics.
 
RoboTimbo said:
It isn't a question of me convincing you.
Click to expand...

Good, because you certainly haven't.

I mean, you can keep saying "any others" until you're blue in the face, but since you can't convincingly address CPT, I'm happy to stick with that.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Good, because you certainly haven't.

I mean, you can keep saying "any others" until you're blue in the face, but since you can't convincingly address CPT, I'm happy to stick with that.
Click to expand...

Which is fine if you want to stick to a discredited WAG to support your beliefs. It was mentioned earlier in the thread that you wouldn't change your belief no matter what so we do see that that's true. Proponents of CPT haven't successfully addressed the problems with their WAG.

So, no other mechanisms then?
 
AvalonXQ said:
Its advocates list several geological phenomena as evidence
Click to expand...

Everybody interprets stuff as evidence for their own beliefs. What matters is what can be demontrated. Can you demonstrate it, because the advocates you speak of have so far failed laughably.

and particularly as things that their theory explains better than gradual plate tectonics.
Click to expand...

Name one.
 
AvalonXQ said:
The only three I'm aware of are a) CPT, b) the vapor layer, and c) hydroplates.
Click to expand...

Cenozoic sediments are post-Flood according to this model. Yet fossils from Cenozoic sediments alone show a 65-million-year record of evolution, including a great deal of the diversification of mammals and angiosperms.
Click to expand...

Still nothing to refute the problems with CPT? Can you admit that there isn't anything that would change your belief? Evidence apparently doesn't do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom