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

[_Gunnar]

While you are fixated on surface features, the issue is the actual shape NOT being spherical.

I'm sure that this is what Brad Hudson means by "straining at gnats." Though the earth and its "geoid" is not perfectly spherical, it is so close to being perfectly spherical that for most ordinary, practical purposes it can be treated as such. By your logic, a billiard ball is not spherical either, because, as already mentioned, the earth and its "geoid" is actually proportionately closer to being a perfect sphere than a typical billiard ball. I remember reading at one time (I will have to look up that reference again) that even some quite acceptable and usable, "precision" ball bearings are proportionately not as close to perfect sphericity as the planet on which we live!

Slight correction: I looked it up. According to the astronomer Phil Plait (see http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... the-earth/), if you reduced the earth to the size of a billiard ball, it would be more than smooth enough to meet the standards of the World Pool-Billiard Association (so smooth, in fact, that you would probably not be able to detect any roughness or imperfections by running your finger over it). Its deviation from perfect roundness would probably not be detectable by eye, though it might be barely noticeable to a professional pool player while in play. As for ball bearings with no greater deviation from roundness than the earth, they would likely be usable in applications that did not require a high degree of precision, but would not meet the highest professional standards for precision.

[_LittleNipper]

Magic is an illusion.

So is god.

"IF" what you say is true, then how does one manufacture living organisms and life in general from inert substances? And how dose one achieve life and order from an explosion? If yoe, who seem like a very smart individual cannot develope a plan that will accomplish this feat, then exactly how did "Mother Nature" do such without a brain or imagination?
You see, some very intelligent people are under the lame superstious illusion that tells them that given enough time, non-living things will work together to become alive. This is what non-living things strive to do (one would suppose). Pinocchio wanted to become a real boy and suddenly he became just that... Doesn't sound scientific at all, but if you say it is, well, I guess because you are so smart, then that must be how it happened...

[_Res Ipsa]

Little Nipper,

I'd be happy to have that discussion with you, but it's a complete derail of this thread. Start new one and I'll chime in.

[_subgenius]

LOL. Of course I'm not going to deny that an all-powerful magical super being that can, by definition, do anything couldn't....well... do anything. If you want to fall back on magic for which there is no evidence, I'm good with that.

What I'm not good with is your disingenous misuse of science. The changing from a sphere to the geoid requires subtraction of water only if gravity makes the water bulge at the highest point of elevation. It doesn't. That is a simple fact shown by the animation. See that blue color? It means the gravity is pulling the water down over the Himalayas. That means MORE water is required to cover them. All your tap dancing doesn't change two simple facts: (1) more water is required to cover Mt. Everest if you take the geoid into account. (2) the difference in water is negligible -- equivalent to raising the altitude of Mt. Everest by a about 50 meters.

Like i said...the previous posts were on the topic of whether there was enough water on the earth (currently) to cover the earth as is noted in Noah's Flood. Speculations in math that attempted to prove that it was impossible have now been shown to be erroneous and flawed in concept.
Thank you for concurring

[_SteelHead]

Sub,
The only thing proven faulty here is your math ability. The +- 100 meters of the geoid would make little difference. But keep repeating your nonsense.....

[_Res Ipsa]

LOL. Of course I'm not going to deny that an all-powerful magical super being that can, by definition, do anything couldn't....well... do anything. If you want to fall back on magic for which there is no evidence, I'm good with that.

What I'm not good with is your disingenous misuse of science. The changing from a sphere to the geoid requires subtraction of water only if gravity makes the water bulge at the highest point of elevation. It doesn't. That is a simple fact shown by the animation. See that blue color? It means the gravity is pulling the water down over the Himalayas. That means MORE water is required to cover them. All your tap dancing doesn't change two simple facts: (1) more water is required to cover Mt. Everest if you take the geoid into account. (2) the difference in water is negligible -- equivalent to raising the altitude of Mt. Everest by a about 50 meters.

Like i said...the previous posts were on the topic of whether there was enough water on the earth (currently) to cover the earth as is noted in Noah's Flood. Speculations in math that attempted to prove that it was impossible have now been shown to be erroneous and flawed in concept.
Thank you for concurring

LOL. Of course I don't concur, but I'll be you knew that before you said it.

The methodology is sound. It's called approximation. You do it all the time. Out here in the real world, we understand that measurements and shapes aren't perfect, and we understand how both to approximate measurements and how the approximation affects the result. It's a sound methodology as long as the approximation doesn't change the result in a meaningful way.

Here's what you are doing: I'm making a cake and I need a cup of water. You're telling me I can't possibly make a cake because the surface tension of the water in my measuring cup means the water surface in my measuring cup is curved and the line on my cup is flat. So, I can't know exactly how much water I have, which prevents me from making a cake. I just laugh and point out that the measurement is accurate enough for the task I am doing: making a cake.

What's the diameter of the earth? About 12,700 kilometers. How many meters is that? About 12,700,000. Your point is that the geoid means there are bumps and dips on the surface of the earth. How big are the bumps/dips? Plus or minus 100 meters. So, what you're saying is: "Aha, because the geoid may change the diameter of the earth by .00079%, you can't estimate the amount of water needed." Pure malarkey. How much water are we short? .00079%? Nope. 1%? Nope. 10%? Nope. 100% Nope. We're short by 200% of the existing water. So, you're quibbling about less than one thousandth of a percent, when we're talking about being 200% short.

Gnats and camels.

ETA: A helpful soul pointed out that I dropped a zero in converting km to m. The diameter of the earth is ten times larger in meters than I originally posted. I've made the corrections. That's what happens when I try to do math before my morning cup o' joe.

[_Themis]

Keep digging subby.

[_subgenius]

LOL. Of course I don't concur, but I'll be you knew that before you said it.

it is still obvious that you do...if you bother to trace this issue in the thread you will see the error of that poster's "math" and "approximation".

The methodology is sound.

because you say so?
the methodology may be sound...but its precision is inaccurate in order to sufficiently support the claim it is making.

It's called approximation. You do it all the time. Out here in the real world, we understand that measurements and shapes aren't perfect, and we understand how both to approximate measurements and how the approximation affects the result. It's a sound methodology as long as the approximation doesn't change the result in a meaningful way.

which is the case, thank you.

Here's what you are doing: I'm making a cake and I need a cup of water. You're telling me I can't possibly make a cake because the surface tension of the water in my measuring cup means the water surface in my measuring cup is curved and the line on my cup is flat. So, I can't know exactly how much water I have, which prevents me from making a cake. I just laugh and point out that the measurement is accurate enough for the task I am doing: making a cake.

typical...you guys always think that simile, metaphor, and allegory somehow "prove" your point....everything is always just an "approximation" - when convenient.
Like i said, your assumption that the flood water must have an equal radius from the assumed center of the earth is, to date, unfounded. To provide a calculation that assumes that "is like" me telling you that using 2 cups of water when the recipe calls for 1 cup prevents you from making a good cake.

What's the diameter of the earth? About 12,700 kilometers. How many meters is that? About 12,700,000. Your point is that the geoid means there are bumps and dips on the surface of the earth. How big are the bumps/dips? Plus or minus 100 meters. So, what you're saying is: "Aha, because the geoid may change the diameter of the earth by .00079%, you can't estimate the amount of water needed." Pure malarkey. How much water are we short? .00079%? Nope. 1%? Nope. 10%? Nope. 100% Nope. We're short by 200% of the existing water. So, you're quibbling about less than one thousandth of a percent, when we're talking about being 200% short.

again, you are making assumptions that do not support the claim.
You have not been able to sufficiently prove that we were ever short any amount...this has already been proven by actual scientist
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/456919-earl ... d-in-water
http://www.earthdive.com/site/news/news ... 09&id=2821
they illustrate how on 2% or 3% of land could have been uncovered by water...this dramatically challenges your assumed numbers above...and gives better "approximation" towards a flood than not.

Let us use Mt Everest at 8.848 km above nearest sea level.
the earth's radius ranges from 6,353 km to 6,384 km (because it is not a sphere)
Now, the first assumed approximation will have a "average" radius of 6,371 km.
Now Mt Everest is the highest above sea level...but...Mount Chimborazo is only 6.267 km and it is the farthest from the earth's "approximate" center...by about 3 km.

In order to cover Mt Everest with water (to the depth of 1 m) the assumption by the previous poster was made that we would need to approximate the earth as a sphere - radius of 6,371 km and then enclose this approximated sphere with a sphere of water that exceeded the "highest point"
In my example above, we assume Everest plus 1 meter or a water sphere of 6,380.849 km...a 0.0014 percentage change in radius.
seemingly insignificant, correct?...one could approximate that there was no change at all.
Yet the previous poster's argument relies on that dramatic volume to illustrate that there is not enough water to "enlarge" the current water sphere.
Just by illustrating that the earth and thus sea level has a varying radius makes that assumption flawed with regards to any subsequent "approximations".
(Sure you approximating one cup of water that bulges at the top is insignificant for a recipe that calls for one cup...but when it calls for 100 million cups it matters)

so, we already know that our current "sea level" is not of an equidistant radius from the earth's approximate center...so we can assume that water is capable of covering the entire planet while having a difference in its radius. (think about Mount Chimborazo above...though Everest is higher above sea level....Chimborazo is "above" Everest while being closer to sea level)

In an oversimplified image there would be plenty enough water to cover the entire planet's surface if water maintained a 1m depth across ever feature.
Now granted the mathematical model to derive what depths water would be where is quite extensive, but is dramatically different than a simple volume sphere within a volume sphere exercise....and when one is claiming "impossible" the differences in those two results is a "meaningful way".
Astronomically, water adheres to the planet "like" icing on a cake...not like gravy over mashed potatoes.

as for the math...shoot...i already posted a link to the Australian scientists who have shown that the earth could be covered with water just from a traditional, or approximate, perspective....so all this is really just entertainment.

Gnats and camels.

:yawn:

[_Res Ipsa]

OK, let's do the math. (Please check my math -- it isn't particularly hard, but the numbers are pretty big)

First, and most importantly, we can look up the height of the geoid at a given latitude and longitude. http://www.unavco.org/community_science/science-support/geoid/geoid.html When we do that for Mt. Everest, we find the height of the geoid there is about 29 meters below sea level. So, even if we adjust for the effects of gravity (convert to the geoid), that adds to the water needed over steelhead's calculation. End of story.

But let's do a hypothetical for yuks. Let's assume that the geoid is at its maximum positive value over Mt. Everest. I've been rounding to 100 meters, but it's actually 85. Now, to give your position the maximum benefit of the doubt, let's add the 85 meters to the entire sphere. In other words, we'll assume that the maximum bulge exists everywhere.

How much water are we saving in volume? We're saving the difference between a sphere with radius 6371 km and 6371.1 km. That's the volume of water we're displacing with the extra 85 meters of radius. Now, do the math:

Radius of earth: 6371 km
Volume of earth: 1083250272904 cubic km
Radius of earth plus 85 meters: 6371.83 km
Volume of earth plus 85 meters: 1083250272904 cu km

Water saved by increasing radius 85 meters: 433,612,647 cu km

Additional water needed (per steelhead): 4,494,855,096 cu km
Water saved by 85 m increase: 433,612,647 cu km
Adjusted additional water needed: 4,061,242,449 cu km

Total water in, on, or above the earth: 1,386,000,000 cu km http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html
Total water, less ocean water: 48,510,000 cu km (because sea water is already reflected in current sea level)
Global flood water deficit: 1,337,490,000 cu km

So, even assuming the geoid is positive everywhere, which will give us a larger amount of water reduction than if it is only positive in some places, we'd need about 2x the total water in, on, or above the earth in order to cover Mt. Everest. Of course, the geoid isn't plus 85 meters everywhere, and in fact is negative over Mt. Everest.

As for your other links, yes, if the earth looked 4,000 years ago like these scientists said it was like billions of years ago, there might be enough water. But it didn't.

[_Drifting]

For someone that doesn't think the earth is spherical, subby spends a lot of time going round...and round...and round...just to reach the same spot he always gets to - "God coulda dunnit wiv magik".