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

[_subgenius]

Sure we make assumptions. Making assumptions doesn't invalidate a model.

No making the assumptions does not....but making incorrect assumptions most certainly does...and you have done that.

The question is, is the assumption reasonable? In determining whether an assumption is reasonable, one of the things we have to look at is how changing the assumption changes the result -- in other words, sensitivity. If the result is very sensitive to the assumption, the assumption needs to be more accurate. If it's not, the assumption can fall within a wide range of values without changing the result.

You are making the predisposition error here....you are honestly trying to claim that your result is "close enough" to what you presupposed it to be, so therefore it must have been a correct presupposition to begin with.
Just because you say something is 4, and then show how 2+2=4 does not affirm that what you said was 4 is actually 4.
see the example i posted above about "P=NP"

Again, bad in equals bad out...that much is accurate.
Spoiler Alert:
self-fulfilling prophecy

So, let's look at the assumptions:

oh joy!

1. Volume. You can test the sensitivity of the result to assumptions about volume yourself. All you have to do is use your volume instead of steelhead's. Go ahead. I suspect you won't because you already know the answer and would take away your talking point.

volumes work out fine.
your arrogant assumption here falls short on the proof for concentric spheres being required...yet that has already been refuted..."sea level" is higher and lower simultaneously across the planet (see animation above for simple example) - so we see your "assumptions" about how water behaves across the planet is inaccurate and possibly just wrong.

2. Quantity of water. Why is this an unreasonable assumption? What reason do we have to believe there has been any material change in the total volume of water in, on or above the earth in the last 6,000 years. Absent magic, by what process could such a change occur? And, since the topic is the flood recorded in the Bible, 6,000,000 years ago is irrelevant.

date of the flood is another topic, and one you may not be qualified to discuss.
Point being the quantity being assumed.

3. Land surface area. Ditto.

ditto

In the interest of narrowing down the scope of our actual disagreement, is there enough water available on, in and above the surface of the earth to submerge the entire land surface as it exists today in water?

finally...you may be the smarter one here by far.......and to borrow your line above
"my opinion is" -
yes, but the real question is "how" it covers the surface of the entire planet.
I consider the fundamental flaw in your model as being this point.
For example, we have all seen the graphic of the planet without water anywhere...and a few spheres of water superimposed upon it. Now, if those same spheres were spread across the planet like cake frosting then coverage would be easily achieved...obviously the ocean has quite a different material consistency and adhesive quality than does cake frosting...but, we have actual scientific evidence that illustrates on the 'macro' level how the ocean can deviate from the 'micro' perception we have about its behavior...it is this latter perception that has been misapplied. Do i have any evidence that another celestial force, or a greater lunar influence, caused the ocean to ebb over land and depress elsewhere? - only some yet to be corroborated historical documents and a global archaeological record of similar accounts - however the availability physical evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive either way on the issue

[_Res Ipsa]

If the concepts aren't difficult, why don't you understand them? I'm still waiting for your explanation of how to add water to the surface of the earth and cover the land without raising the surface of the oceans.

If the concepts aren't difficult, why don't you understand that a sphere that fits inside an oblate spheroid has less surface area than the oblate spheroid?

If the concepts aren't difficult, why can't you tell the difference between a diagram with significant distortions and the actual thing being represented?

All that is preventing you from understanding is the difference between wanting to be right and wanting to discover what's right.

Since you really seem obsessed with the whole shrinking the earth for comparison purposes, try this experiment. Hold an egg in one hand. Hold a sphere in the other. Now, look at the earth. Not a drawing of the earth. Not a picture of the earth. At the real earth. Does the real earth look more like the egg or the sphere? Can you tell by looking?

[_Res Ipsa]

yes, but the real question is "how" it covers the surface of the entire planet.
I consider the fundamental flaw in your model as being this point.
For example, we have all seen the graphic of the planet without water anywhere...and a few spheres of water superimposed upon it. Now, if those same spheres were spread across the planet like cake frosting then coverage would be easily achieved...obviously the ocean has quite a different material consistency and adhesive quality than does cake frosting...but, we have actual scientific evidence that illustrates on the 'macro' level how the ocean can deviate from the 'micro' perception we have about its behavior...it is this latter perception that has been misapplied. Do i have any evidence that another celestial force, or a greater lunar influence, caused the ocean to ebb over land and depress elsewhere? - only some yet to be corroborated historical documents and a global archaeological record of similar accounts - however the availability physical evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive either way on the issue

So that I understand what you are saying here: If you could use all the available water and use it like paint, you could paint the entire surface of the earth with a thin layer of water and thus have globally flooded the earth. Do I have that right?

[_Res Ipsa]

You are making the predisposition error here....you are honestly trying to claim that your result is "close enough" to what you presupposed it to be, so therefore it must have been a correct presupposition to begin with.

No. If you think that's what I'm doing, you don't understand what I'm doing. I had no presupposition about the answer to the question we're asking. I've heard various claims, but never looked into it before. So, to try to figure it out, I build a model that I think makes realistic assumptions. Then, I check those assumptions to see what varying them will do to the result. More importantly, I adjust those assumptions so that, if there is error in the model, all the error works in favor of Noah. That way, if I'm still short of water, I can say with confidence that Noah's out of luck.

It's not predisposition. It's making and adjusting models to get to the right answer.

Just for an example, you keep complaining about using spheres in the model. Let's take it step by step.

1. Do you agree that, for a given volume of water, the larger the surface area that must be covered by the water, the lower the average height of the water will be above the surface?

[_Res Ipsa]

date of the flood is another topic, and one you may not be qualified to discuss.

What qualifications are required to discuss the date of the Biblical flood?

[_LittleNipper]

date of the flood is another topic, and one you may not be qualified to discuss.

What qualifications are required to discuss the date of the Biblical flood?

What qualifications are required to discuss global warming? The President and Gore seem to have enough to say about that.

[_Res Ipsa]

LIttle Nipper, I've made a grave mistake. I thought you were a person one could actually have an intelligent conversation with. I was wrong.

Best of luck with your holy book.

Brad

[_Gunnar]

All that is preventing you from understanding is the difference between wanting to be right and wanting to discover what's right.

With every one of subgenius's posts it becomes increasingly clear that this is the crux of his problem. He is not the slightest bit interested in discovering any truth that conflicts what he has already decided to believe (at least, when it comes to his religious convictions). If I still had that debilitating deficiency, I would still believe Noah's Flood was literally true too, and I would probably still believe in the Book of Mormon as well.

It is interesting and Ironic that he and other true believers accuse those of us, who have actually demonstrated a capacity and willingness for correcting our old, mistaken ideas when warranted by the evidence, of being "closed minded!"

I will grant him one thing though. He is right when he says that having advanced academic degrees in science is not all one needs to truly qualify as a "real scientist", though as scientific knowledge continues to advance and accumulate, it is becoming increasingly difficult to succeed as one without such advanced, formal training. There have, in the past, been significant breakthroughs in technology and scientific understanding made by largely self-educated and brilliant "amateurs." Though this will probably become increasingly rare, I doubt that it has yet reached the point of impossibility.

[_Res Ipsa]

I will grant him one thing though. He is right when he says that having advanced academic degrees in science is not all one needs to truly qualify as a "real scientist", though as scientific knowledge continues to advance and accumulate, it is becoming increasingly difficult to succeed as one without such advanced, formal training. There have, in the past, been significant breakthroughs in technology and scientific understanding made by largely self-educated and brilliant "amateurs." Though this will probably become increasingly rare, I doubt that it has yet reached the point of impossibility.

I absolutely agree. And even a "real scientist" is only being a "real scientist" when she thinks like "real scientists" do. Even the greatest scientist can say and think some absolutely crazy stuff. I read the whole speech from which subgenious's current Feynman tag line was taken. His point about "experts" is that one can become an "expert" by accumulating information without understanding it. Feynman's genius was his drive to figure out how stuff works. He is the perfect example of a person who values getting things right above being right. Subgenius is the anti-Feynman.

[_Gunnar]

I absolutely agree. And even a "real scientist" is only being a "real scientist" when she thinks like "real scientists" do. Even the greatest scientist can say and think some absolutely crazy stuff. I read the whole speech from which subgenious's current Feynman tag line was taken. His point about "experts" is that one can become an "expert" by accumulating information without understanding it. Feynman's genius was his drive to figure out how stuff works. He is the perfect example of a person who values getting things right above being right. Subgenius is the anti-Feynman.

Yes! "Accumulating information without understanding it" really seems to be subgenius's forte--especially when it comes to this topic. I'm sure that no one would find his arguments sillier than some of the very scientists from whose articles and papers he gleaned some of the "information" he used to support them.