Why I don't believe the story of the Great Flood...

[_SteelHead]

None of those really help your case. When you start with the conclusion and then work backwards to force the data to fit the conclusion..........

[_LittleNipper]

None of those really help your case. When you start with the conclusion and then work backwards to force the data to fit the conclusion..........

Isn't this exactly how police investigate a crime scene? They start with the fact that there could have been a murder and look at the evidence to see if it supports that view. In the case of the Flood, there are all the tales insisting there was a worldwide flood which destroyed humanity with only a select few surviving in a boat or chest or ark... Evolutionists do not force the data to fit speculations that the world could not have been built in a week? Sorry, but I know of no one who went looking for "a City of Troy," without having first heard that there might have been one.

[_SteelHead]

No. They do not pre conclude who committed the crime then make the evidence fit the conclusion. Rather they let the evidence tell the story.

[_subgenius]

Use the formula for the volume of a sphere to calculate the amount of water needed to raise the sea level over the Himalayas.

1st calculate the volume required to cover the highest mountains. (Hint radius of the earth at sea level + 8.84 km).

umm which radius are you assuming? this link states the radius 6.4 million meter
Wikipedia
notes the following 3 radii
Mean radius 6,371.0 km
Equatorial radius 6,378.1 km
Polar radius 6,356.8 km

can't seem to find the +8.84 km you are referencing?

the highest mountain (Mt Everest) is about .07% of the earth diameter..or a difference in radius of about .035%....but lets be generous and increase your 8.84km radius into 8.85km (which would be a 0.07% increase of radius...otherwise the values start to get insignificant)

volume of 8.85km sphere equals 2903.5 cu. km

2nd calculate the volume at sea level.

volume of 8.84 sphere equals 2893.6 cu. km

3rd. Subtract 2 from 1.

2903.5 cu. km - 2893.6 cu. km = 9.9 cu. km

4th Multiply by .9 to roughly account for landmass.

arbitrary value seemingly

Now find the resultant volume of water.

9.9 cu. km

Roughly 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water. Or more than 3 times the existing volume of the seas & oceans.

your math is off, your logic is oversimplified, and your premise seems to be flawed.

Where did it go?

it followed your reasoning out the window?

let us look at actual numbers.

The volume of all the water on earth is approx 332.5 million cubic miles
This much water just atop the United States would be 170 miles deep
There is more freshwater "inside" the earth than "on" it (lakes, rivers, etc..)
70.8% of earth's surface is water, thus 29.2% is available for flooding....this assumes that 29.2% was available during Noah's flood, not more and not less..there is no way to determine either with any degree of accuracy.(20% of the land surface is already covered with snow/ice)
1,603,176,817,000,000 sq ft of land surface
the highest point on land is Mt Everest at +29k feet
48,095,304,510,000,000,000 cu.ft of water...or 326,738,952 million cubic miles
So, we see that there is enough water currently available on earth to flood the entire available land surface to over the top of the highest point of land (Everest).
However, this only leaves 5.8 million cubic miles of water to "fill in" where there was no previous available land surface....which was a water surface area of 3,887,192,497,000,000 sq feet or 139,433,845 sq miles...or about 221 feet of water depth for that surface area.

Now realize that with regards to the earth, it is not a sphere...it is an oblate spheroid, but our calculations can illustrate the point. Furthermore one must realize that the radius of the earth is only increased by .035 percent (.0007) if we take Everest as its outer radius, as compared to taking sea level.
Besides i am not sure that all the assumptions being made are valid...for example, if the entire subsurface water evacuates to above surely there will some significant collapsing of land surfaces, a sinking effect for some land masses...probably not significant to mountains but perhaps meaningful.

Now, obviously there is enough water to actually cover the entire earth, albeit asymmetrically applied (as it is applied today)...but there may be cause to consider this as feasible considering that water may well ebb and flow, swell and squall to being less than an evenly distributed elevation over great expanses...especially since it already does that significantly across our earth today (ie. tidal bulge due to moon).

See a graphic model of this asymmetric distribution at the bottom of this page
that image represents the major flaw in your assumption above, which is that the water would have to be a consistent depth across the subsurface of the planet....and this influence is just from a solar/lunar source.

The assumption that the flood would have to be to the depth of Mt Everest consistently across the entire earth is rather naïve, unnecessary, and just not rational. The scientific data supports that our planet is actually asymmetric in shape and thus the surface of the sea at any given point is not actually equidistant from the earth's center....and arguably since a large portion of Everest is under ice already, complete coverage may not be necessary for one to consider it "flooded" for the purposes of extinguishing life....but i still maintain that the earth is capable of being "waterworld" and current science and the tradition of religion support that conclusion.
The only objections are fro those who want to simply assume that the flood is some sort of linchpin in the fall of the Bible, wherein their only argument is that "it just seems to not be possible", yet we see that science is revealing more and more that indeed it is possible.

[_subgenius]

I really have to wonder about a person who keeps providing quotes of things that show he is wrong and the other guy is right. Thanks for quoting me so others can see I have not made any absolute truth claims. I wonder if you are going to even try to provide where the scientific community has said the Earth has never been covered by water, which is not to say that have said it was covered by water. Remember you quote of Australian scientists never said it was fully covered. Oh wait you didn't even read what I said and thought I was stating the opposite as some absolute. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Try reading what I say for once.

so, you agree that it has been you making the claims that science is "absolute"...thank you....duly noted

i also noted that my use of the australians was in support for making a reasonable conclusion, not that they ever stated the earth was flooded...but hey make it up as you go along (again)

(by the way, referencing your quotes to support the assertion that you are the one speaking for science in absolutes does not mean that those same quotes are accurate or true in their substance....just sayin')

[_Themis]

so, you agree that it has been you making the claims that science is "absolute"...thank you....duly noted

i also noted that my use of the australians was in support for making a reasonable conclusion, not that they ever stated the earth was flooded...but hey make it up as you go along (again)

(by the way, referencing your quotes to support the assertion that you are the one speaking for science in absolutes does not mean that those same quotes are accurate or true in their substance....just sayin')

I am not sure why you continue to obviously lie about what I have said. I have not made any statements about absolutes. For most of this thread you have been making weak attempts to attack others to score some points instead of dealing with the subject. At least nipper is trying as best he knows.

I must have missed what reasonable point you think this article brings up since it has nothing to do with Noah or any flood event.

[_SteelHead]

Sub,
Serious math fail.

Take the radius of the earth. Pick any of the three you listed. Calculate the volume of the sphere.
I'll use the smallest value listed in wiki 6353 km. (This one gives the smallest delta v and is the best result for some one trying to prove the flood...... But it doesn't help)

1074051671474.8 cubic km

Now add 8.85 km to the radius that you used previously.
Use this radius and again calculate the volume of the sphere.
1078546526571.3 cubic km

Subtract the first result from the second. The result is the volume of water needed to go from sea level to the top of Everest.
4494855096.49 cubic km

My initial figures also accounted for some terestrial displacement.

Pretty simple.

You can't use a % extrapolation as the volume increases at the cube of the radius.

There is nothing approaching this volume of water on the earth, not combing ground water, ocean water, frozen water, and atmospheric water, etc etc etc.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html

Seeing how you fail at basic math I start to understand your lack of understanding science.

[_SteelHead]

Heck I'll be nice.

Take the mean radius of Earth at 6371 km and add 1 km to account for the average height of land (800 m more or less). Calculate the volume. This assumes the landmass is across the whole globe grossly overestimating the land displacement and giving:
1083717061382 cubic km.

Now add 8.84 (rounding down to help out your cause) to that radius and calculate.
1087722146034 cubic km

Delta v
4005084652.7 cubic km

Now you are only somewhat over twice the volume of all the water on the earth.

Where did it go?

The numbers are even more fun if you use the mean and the maximum radii. But any way you look at it you are missing some 4 billion cubic km of water minimum.

[_LittleNipper]

No. They do not pre conclude who committed the crime then make the evidence fit the conclusion. Rather they let the evidence tell the story.

And that is exactly what Creationist do. They are letting the evidence tell the story of the Flood. The uniformitarians do not consider ther Flood. They suspect the evidence will support millions of years of erosion, ice, rain, evolution, and that is how "they" sort the data. Evolutionists are far from unbias.

[_LittleNipper]

Where did the Flood waters go?

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html