Noah and his ark?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vittorio23
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
The total volume of ground water is 50 times that of surface water.
Click to expand...
Oh dear, oh dear, how wrong can you be?

What devil leads the uninformed to make such apparently magisterial and yet so fantastically wrong statements.

96.5% of supra-crustal water is in the oceans, 1.7% is in glaciers and icecaps, 1.7% is in groundwater, minuscule quantities in freshwater lakes, rivers, the atmosphere and in living things.

So it’s exactly opposite to your claim - oceanic and free freshwater is more than 70 times groundwater. I hope you are blushing.

There is also some water in subducting plates (subduction causes orogeny 🙂 ) - oh and our hero Walt denies plate tectonics and subduction - what a dumb position given modern scientific evidence - that thoroughly sums him up. Water is trapped in subducting plates; it is a small percentage of oceanic water, and moreover it is not free to be released.

I hope you have the decency to admit that you were very, very wrong. We’ll see.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
hecd2 said:
Oh dear, oh dear, how wrong can you be?

What devil leads the uninformed to make such apparently magisterial and yet so fantastically wrong statements.

96.5% of supra-crustal water is in the oceans, 1.7% is in glaciers and icecaps, 1.7% is in groundwater, minuscule quantities in freshwater lakes, rivers, the atmosphere and in living things.

So it’s exactly opposite to your claim - oceanic and free freshwater is more than 70 times groundwater. I hope you are blushing.

There is also some water in subducting plates (subduction causes orogeny 🙂 ) - oh and our hero Walt denies plate tectonics and subduction - what a dumb position given modern scientific evidence - that thoroughly sums him up. Water is trapped in subducting plates; it is a small percentage of oceanic water, and moreover it is not free to be released.

I hope you have the decency to admit that you were very, very wrong. We’ll see.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
It hard to be humble…

Will you admit when you are wrong?

Inner Earth May Hold More Water Than the Seas

Molten rocks deep in the earths interior may be surprisingly wet, Japanese researchers say. From lab experiments, they have concluded there may be more H2O deep underground than in all oceans, lakes, and rivers combined.

The scientists first heated “mineral cocktails” to a white-hot 1600 degrees Celsius (2900 degrees Fahrenheit) and squeezed them until the pressure reached more than three million pounds per square inch (200,000 kilograms per square centimeter). Then they cooked the samples for an hour.

The experiments replicated the environment and conditions deep in the Earth.
Based on what they witnessed in their lab, the researchers concluded that more water probably exists deep within the Earth than is present on Earth’s surface—as much as five times more.
 
buffalo said:
It hard to be humble…
Click to expand...
Yes, you do find it difficult to be humble, don’t you? I am perfectly aware of this work. The proper scientific reference is this:
Murakami et al, Water in Earth’s Lower Mantle, Science 295, 1885 - 1887 (2002) and I have read it and understood it. Have you?

Murukami’s work is fine, but he himself admits that just because 0.17% of mantle COULD be water, then that doesn’t mean that therefore it is:

“Our results suggest that the lower mantle can **potentially **store considerable amounts of water” [emphasis mine]

“The water may be transported into the lower mantle by the subduction of hydrated slabs” [emphasis mine]

Note my comment:
" There is also some water in subducting plates"

No-one knows how much water there is in the mantle even if Murakami et al have shown that there could be as much as 0.2% w/w.

** But all of this is entirely irrelevant to the flood, because even if there is as much water as this in the mantle (and there is potentially as much again in the transition zone that you have missed) it is tied up completely in the crystalline minerals Mg- perovskite, Ca-perovskite, and magnesiowüstite - it is not free to “burst forth” to cause a flood at the surface and there is no condition, no circumstances under which it would.**

When it comes to free water, that which can flow, ground water is 1.7% of the total. And that’s a fact.

This shows that quote mining in areas where you know little or nothing is a dangerous thing. It is quite likely to lead the ignorant from embarrassment to further embarrassment.

Well, let’s see if, when in a hole, you keep digging.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
buffalo said:
Specify what absurd claim I have made.
Click to expand...
Here are some more:

“Let’s assume the earth was shifted at just the right acceleration to cause a massive tidal shift. Along with the tidal shift comes a sort of oozing of the groundwater. This oozing and shift does not have the agitation that a “fast flood” would have , rather like a glass of water being filled very slowly.”

“Indeed. Let’s subsitute a strong gravitational force instead of an impact. Time plus gravitational influence.
When I was postulating the model I should have been more clear.”

" Then you can easily confirm your well water levels change with the moon., right?"

“Yes, I moved away from the impact scenario. How about a steady gravitational force. The moon causes oceans to rise by up to 30 feet or so. Hurricanse cause local surges of around 30 to 50 feet. Agreed?
Put that supercomputer brain to work. What size moon (mass) would it take to raise water levels 1,000 feet? Or what distance would the moon have to be from the earth to do so?”

All of these are absolute garbage and display a complete lack of basic scientific understanding. I am particularly amused by the idea that water in wells is subject to significant lunar or solar tides. You obviously know nothing about tides.Have you ever, ever heard of the Laplace tidal equation,. which require lateral or horizontal shear? If you had, you wouldn’t be posting nonsense such as this.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Teflon93 said:
As Hillaire Belloc has noted, it is because Germany existed outside of Western civilization for most of its history. Indeed, that’s the case with ALL Protestant countries.

If you overlay religious denominations on a map of Europe along with the boundaries of the Roman Empire, you’ll see his point.
Click to expand...

I don’t understand this at all :eek: - explain, please 🙂 ? TY​

Germany was evangelised 600 years before Lithuania; England was partly Christian centuries before St. Augustine of Canterbury arrived in 597. Lithuania, the late-comer, is the only one of these to be predominantly Catholic. It is not possible to generalise in this way - Visigothic Spain was Arian from 410 to 586; Hungary was not Catholic until the 10th century, centuries after St. Columba went to Scotland in 563.
 
WOW, my original posting of Noah and his Ark turned into a fiasco. It’s like asking a watch maker what time it is and in response he begins telling you how to build a watch!

I do believe that even Noah would be confused and wonder if he ever did built an ark or if there ever was a flood, after reading all the follow-up postings.

I think I’ll pass on to another topic.
 
hecd2 said:
All of these are absolute garbage and display a complete lack of basic scientific understanding. I am particularly amused by the idea that water in wells is subject to significant lunar or solar tides. You obviously know nothing about tides.Have you ever, ever heard of the Laplace tidal equation,. which require lateral or horizontal shear? If you had, you wouldn’t be posting nonsense such as this.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
Why Groundwater Levels Change

Figure 10.
 
OK - I will not argue that there is enough groundwater anymore. We will wait and see the long term results of this theory.

And even if true I am not sure how it would be unlocked.
 
hecd2 said:
Here are some more:

“Let’s assume the earth was shifted at just the right acceleration to cause a massive tidal shift. Along with the tidal shift comes a sort of oozing of the groundwater. This oozing and shift does not have the agitation that a “fast flood” would have , rather like a glass of water being filled very slowly.”

“Indeed. Let’s subsitute a strong gravitational force instead of an impact. Time plus gravitational influence.
When I was postulating the model I should have been more clear.”

" Then you can easily confirm your well water levels change with the moon., right?"

“Yes, I moved away from the impact scenario. How about a steady gravitational force. The moon causes oceans to rise by up to 30 feet or so. Hurricanse cause local surges of around 30 to 50 feet. Agreed?
Put that supercomputer brain to work. What size moon (mass) would it take to raise water levels 1,000 feet? Or what distance would the moon have to be from the earth to do so?”

All of these are absolute garbage and display a complete lack of basic scientific understanding. I am particularly amused by the idea that water in wells is subject to significant lunar or solar tides. You obviously know nothing about tides.Have you ever, ever heard of the Laplace tidal equation,. which require lateral or horizontal shear? If you had, you wouldn’t be posting nonsense such as this.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
Steveanderson was courteous enough to at least do the math.

I am a big picture guy and leave you guys to work out the details. If an idea is not plausible and can be illustrated to be so without bias then so be it.

I attempt to open your minds.
 
Groundwater levels are subject to tidal variations, but the effects are very small. Just remember that water is not the only thing affected by the tidal pull of the moon (and to a lesser extent the sun). I think that is a very common misconception regarding tides. All mass is affected, including the ground itself.

Peace

Tim
 
buffalo said:
Why Groundwater Levels Change

Figure 10.
Click to expand...
Yes but these tidal effects are tiny (maximum inches) compared to the amplitude of oceanic tides and are caused either by aquifers linking to the oceanic tides near coasts or by deformation of the interstices in the matrix holding the water under tidal forces (like squeezing a sponge). If oceanic tides can’t do a flood then these tiny effects won’t.

Tidal effects do not cause significant (for the purposes of this discussion) water level changes in wells.

Even if all the supra-crustal groundwater in the world was gathered up and dumped into the ocean, it wouldn’t come near to causing a global flood. That’s because it is less than 1/70th of the ocean volume (rather than being 50 times as you claimed).

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
buffalo said:
Steveanderson was courteous enough to at least do the math.

I am a big picture guy and leave you guys to work out the details. If an idea is not plausible and can be illustrated to be so without bias then so be it.

I attempt to open your minds.
Click to expand...
You are not a big picture guy - you are, as far as science goes, a no-picture guy.

Open our minds? Don’t be ridiculous. How an earth can speculation that runs so clearly counter to known physical principles and based on such profound ignorance of science open the mind of scientists? You are not trying to open anyone’s mind - you are trying to convince yourself and the non-scientific that there is a plausible explanation for global flood. There isn’t.

And I was courteous to point out the actual ratio of supra-crustal ground water to oceanic water - 1.7% not 5000% as you would have it.

As for doing the maths, it can be done. But what’s the point of expending effort on propositions that are inherently physically absurd? It’s clear that you have been casting about in some desperation for an explanation that might encompass the flood. Why should knowledgeable people waste our time refuting every crazy creationist notion that Tom, Buffalo or Harry comes up with after two seconds of ill-informed thought?

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
hecd2 said:
You are not a big picture guy - you are, as far as science goes, a no-picture guy.

Open our minds? Don’t be ridiculous. How an earth can speculation that runs so clearly counter to known physical principles and based on such profound ignorance of science open the mind of scientists? You are not trying to open anyone’s mind - you are trying to convince yourself and the non-scientific that there is a plausible explanation for global flood. There isn’t.

And I was courteous to point out the actual ratio of supra-crustal ground water to oceanic water - 1.7% not 5000% as you would have it.

As for doing the maths, it can be done. But what’s the point of expending effort on propositions that are inherently physically absurd? It’s clear that you have been casting about in some desperation for an explanation that might encompass the flood. Why should knowledgeable people waste our time refuting every crazy creationist notion that Tom, Buffalo or Harry comes up with after two seconds of ill-informed thought?

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
Well because the earth has much fluid on it and in its core. I am exploring the possibilities of gravitational effects on these fluids. We definitely know that the earth itself is distorted due to its spinning. We know the oceans are distorted by the moon. We know the largest effect of gravity is from the sun.

I am asking the limits to be calculated.

And if you do not wish to respond to these questions, then don’t. Perhaps someone else will. No big deal to me.
 
buffalo said:
Well because the earth has much fluid on it and in its core. I am exploring the possibilities of gravitational effects on these fluids. We definitely know that the earth itself is distorted due to its spinning. We know the oceans are distorted by the moon. We know the largest effect of gravity is from the sun.
Click to expand...
Wild speculation is not the same as exploration.

I assume by fluid, you mean water.

And the strongest tidal force at the earth is from the moon not the sun. It really would help if you did a little homework.
I am asking the limits to be calculated.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you calculate them yourself? It seems to me that you are indulging in wild and unwarranted speculation in the hope that you can persuade some uninformed people that there are sensible hypotheses to explain a global flood. (There aren’t). I find that somewhat diingenuous.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top