Global Flood

[otseng]

One of the significant parts of the Creation Model (CM) is that a world-wide flood occurred. This flood covered the entire world. Naturally, many questions arise out of this:

How can a world-wide flood feasibly happen?
Where did all the water come from?
Where did all the water go?
What significance does it have on the CM?
What evidence are there of a global flood?

[perfessor]

Otseng wrote:

How about let's just focus on the pre-flood environment for now? We can debate this area first. Then we can get into what the FM says about what happened during the flood.

OK, we'll talk pre-flood environment. In the meantime, I'd better go back to school! So much I didn't study in engineering school.

There wasn't the seasons back then as we know now. It certainly didn't have seasons of dryness. This is evidenced in trees found in the Carboniferous period. Trees in this period are characterized by having no growth rings.

Can you give approximate years for the Carboniferous period? I need to do some independent research. How does your "Earth timeline" line up with more, er, commonly accepted timelines? When approximately did the flood occur?

[fried beef sandwich]

This Vapor Canopy Analysis is short, sweet, and to the point. It'll only take you a few minutes to read.

To build on one point in the article: if the earth really had that much water in its atmosphere, all the creatures of the earth would be crushed to death under the atmospheric pressure.

But, if they were not crushed and were actually surviving those conditions, it would only be because their bodies are resisting the atmospheric pressure with pressure of their own. I.e., their bodies are exerting a pressure of 960 pounds per square inch (psi) outwards to resist the atmosphere exerting a pressure of 960 psi inwards. This is just basic high school physics, Newton's Laws. For every force exerted in one direction, there is an equal and opposite force exerted in the opposite direction.

But as soon as all that water condenses (i.e., drops out of the atmosphere as liquid form), all the creatures of the earth would die horrible, painful deaths. This is because once that water falls to earth and comes out of the atmospheric canopy, the atmospheric pressure would drop. In our modern atmospheric conditions, the atmospheric pressure is about 14.5 psi.

To illustrate, if you took an astronaut, stuck him in an airlock, and shot him into space, his blood would literally boil and he'd explode quite messily (especially his eyeballs). And the pressure difference between space and his body is only 14.5 psi. (Space = 0 psi inwards, Body = 14.5 psi outwards.)

Imagine what would happen if pre-flood creatures encountered a post-flood atmosphere. (Atmosphere = 14.5 psi inwards, Body = 960 psi outwards). Nothing on the ark would survive.

There was another article elsewhere (I can't find the link in my bookmarks, sorry) where someone calculated the kinetic energy released by the water dropping out of the sky and striking the earth's surface for 40 days and 40 nights and how it would affect the atmosphere. Basically, he calculated that the heat produced would boil everyone alive.

[otseng]

How does your "Earth timeline" line up with more, er, commonly accepted timelines? When approximately did the flood occur?

The CM timeline and the EM timeline is about as totally opposite to each other as you can get. The CM believes the Earth is around 10,000 years old, if one is a Young Earth Creationist (YEC). Of course, EM measures things in millions/billions of years ago.

The flood probably occurred around 2400 BC. There are several indirect evidences for this, but the number is generally inferred from genealogies from the Bible.

[otseng]

To build on one point in the article: if the earth really had that much water in its atmosphere, all the creatures of the earth would be crushed to death under the atmospheric pressure.

To clarify, the water in the canopy did not provide much of the water that covered the entire world. If anything, only a small fraction of it did. The water canopy is not theorized to provide water for the flood, but to explain the climate conditions on the earth prior to the flood. The additional water for the flood was found under the surface of the earth in the subterranean water chambers.

[fried beef sandwich]

To clarify, the water in the canopy did not provide much of the water that covered the entire world. If anything, only a small fraction of it did. The water canopy is not theorized to provide water for the flood, but to explain the climate conditions on the earth prior to the flood. The additional water for the flood was found under the surface of the earth in the subterranean water chambers.

Even if the water canopy was not the primary supply of water for the flood, there are still a lot of problems with a subsurface-supplied global flood. I'm really sorry I don't have time to go into it in detail right now (i'm late for work) ...

but if you're interested, there are several paragraphs right here that deal with it quite nicely.[/url]

[perfessor]

In the "Parent" thread to this one, Otseng wrote:

Also, I would like to suggest that references to the Bible be avoided whenever possible. If it is used, it should not be used as evidence for creationism. It can only be used as collaborative testimony to evidence that already exists.

The flood probably occurred around 2400 BC. There are several indirect evidences for this, but the number is generally inferred from genealogies from the Bible.

In view of the previous quote, I'm going to ask you to present the "indirect evidences", and leave the geneology out of it.

If the flood occurred some 4400 years ago, this is well within the range where carbon-14 dating is reasonably accurate. Is there any data that shows, say, a world-wide layer of mud deposited 4400 years ago?

[mrmufin]

It seems that this topic could become unbelievably huge.

I agree. So, to limit this thread, this thread should not contain how evolutionary theories can explain things. Separate threads should be created to dive into those areas.

Huh? You bring the topic of a global flood into a debate form and don't want the presentation of evidences which refute the plausability of the topic?

And Walt brown's "Hydroplate Theory" has been published in which peer-reviewed scientific journals?

I don't know. And actually, it's immaterial to the debate. This thread is not to debate on Dr Brown's ability to publish his findings in scientific journals. For debate sake, let's just assume that I was the one who came up with the Hydroplate Theory. Then we can then debate this on evidence alone.

Actually, the scientific veracity of Walt Brown's theory is germane to this discussion, especially if that is a premise of your presentation. If credible, Brown's Hydroplate Theory would undermine an enormous amount of evidence in the biological, geological, physical and astronomical sciences. If credible, it would most certainly be worthy of publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, such as Science or Nature or Scientific American.

From www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html:

Hydroplate. Walt Brown's model proposes that the Flood waters came from a layer of water about ten miles underground, which was released by a catastrophic rupture of the earth's crust, shot above the atmosphere, and fell as rain.

* How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth's crust, doesn't float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or Adam's time for that matter.
* Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.
* Where is the evidence? The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. (Noah would have had to worry about falling rocks along with the rain.) Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.

Regards,
mrmufin

[otseng]

I agree. So, to limit this thread, this thread should not contain how evolutionary theories can explain things. Separate threads should be created to dive into those areas.

Huh? You bring the topic of a global flood into a debate form and don't want the presentation of evidences which refute the plausability of the topic?

Certainly do bring in evidence to refute the FM. Where did I say that was not allowed? But, separate threads should be created to debate how the EM would explain things.

Actually, the scientific veracity of Walt Brown's theory is germane to this discussion, especially if that is a premise of your presentation.

If you are questioning his credibility, then that is another issue.

From his bio:

Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired full colonel (Air Force), West Point graduate, and former Army ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years in the military included: Director of Benet Research, Development, and Engineering Laboratories in Albany, New York; tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life, Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after many years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military in 1980, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and speaking on origins.

How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth's crust, doesn't float.

The water was trapped by granite above and basalt below. The rock doesn't have to "float". The crust encircles the entire earth, so there is no need for anything to float. Just like an egg shell doesn't have to float on top of the egg white. Furthermore, the water was in chambers, so there can be additional support between the two rock layers.

Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.

Yes, the water was superheated. But, it lost a lot of it's energy during the rupture phase of the flood. Noah was in the ark so he avoided being "poached".

Where is the evidence? The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. (Noah would have had to worry about falling rocks along with the rain.) Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.

We will get to this when I explain what exactly happened during the flood.

[otseng]

If the flood occurred some 4400 years ago, this is well within the range where carbon-14 dating is reasonably accurate. Is there any data that shows, say, a world-wide layer of mud deposited 4400 years ago?

Practically the entire rock strata (especially since the Cambrian layer) were created during the flood, so using one specific layer to point to the flood is meaningless.

In view of the previous quote, I'm going to ask you to present the "indirect evidences", and leave the geneology out of it.

One indirect evidence is from the population growth equation.

The population in 2000 AD has been stated as 6.4 billion. In 1 AD, the population estimates vary from 150 million to 300 million. For the purposes of this discussion, I will use 200 million as the population at 1 AD.

The exponential growth rate equation is:

N(t) = N(0) * e ^ (r*t)

Where:
N(t) is the population after t time
N(0) is the initial populuation
r is the population growth rate
t is elapsed time

Solving for r, with:
N(t) = 6.4 x 10E9
N(0) = 2 x 10E8
t = 2000 years

r comes out to be 0.00173 (or 0.173%). So, this is the growth rate from 1 AD to 2000 AD.

How reasonable is this number? By comparing to population growth numbers of all the countries it certainly falls within acceptable range. Currently it varies from 7.77% (0.0777) on the top end to -3.55% (-0.0355) on the bottom. The calculated number roughly matches the growth rate of Finland at 0.15% (0.0015).

Also, this number factors in things that wiped out populations. (The Black Death killed between 25% to 50% of Europe.) So, r=.00173 would be considered the upper limit.

Solving for t, with:
N(t) = 2 x 10E8
N(0) = 8 (assuming 4 couples survived the flood)
r = 0.00173

t comes out to be 9846. So, using population growth rate from 1 AD to 2000 AD, the population could've started with 8 people in 9846 BC. Bear in mind that this is the upper limit.

Using this chart of world population number, I calculated the rates and applied them to determine the flood date.

N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=2.52E+09, end date=2000, start date=1950, t=50, r=0.018672553 --> Flood date=912 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=1.66E+09, end date=2000, start date=1900, t=100, r=0.013518929 --> Flood date=1260 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=1.27E+09, end date=2000, start date=1850, t=150, r=0.010808172 --> Flood date=1576 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=7.95E+08, end date=2000, start date=1750, t=250, r=0.008342845 --> Flood date=2041 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=5.00E+08, end date=2000, start date=1650, t=350, r=0.007284129 --> Flood date=2338 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=4.50E+08, end date=2000, start date=1200, t=800, r=0.003318507 --> Flood date=5133 BC

(I assumed N(0) = 8 and N(t) = 2 x 10E8 for the Flood date calculation)

So, using world population data and the population growth equation, it shows that the entire world was populated by 8 people between 9846 BC and 912 BC.

Being that I'm not a math major, I'd welcome anybody to check my math.

[fried beef sandwich]

Actually, the scientific veracity of Walt Brown's theory is germane to this discussion, especially if that is a premise of your presentation.

If you are questioning his credibility, then that is another issue.

From his bio:

<snip>

So this guy is a mechanical engineer who teaches math and CS? I'm sorry, but I seriously doubt that he's qualified to speak on matters of geophysics, geology, etc. I can say with 95% confidence that mechanical engineers, whether undergraduate, graduate, or postdoctorate, do not take any courses in geophysics or geology.

Here is a representative sampling of graduate classes from MIT's ME program (i.e., Walt Brown's alma mater) here: http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Mechanical-En ... /index.htm

None of those classes relate to geology or petroleum engineering, etc. If you see anything in that course list that might relates to flood model theory or geology, please feel free to let me know.

Yes, the water was superheated. But, it lost a lot of it's energy during the rupture phase of the flood. Noah was in the ark so he avoided being "poached".

If he wasn't poached, he was steamed. If the water "lost a lot of its energy during the rupture phase of the flood," that energy has to go somewhere, and that means kinetic energy and heat.

Have you been to Yellowstone National Park to look at their hot springs and geysers? I have. That place is HOT and STEAMY. (Whoa, getting X-rated there! ) There's a foul-smelling fog that's all around. Thepark rangers only let you see Old Faithful from a nice, safe distance because the water that comes out of that thing is pretty darned hot. In fact, that's why there's a geyser in the first place: the groundwater (located beneath tons of rock) found an outlet to the surface to relieve the pressure from the earth heating the water.

Keep in mind that bodies of water are notoriously good for retaining heat (that's why it's got such a high boiling point), so as the earth starts to get covered by water, the energy released by the heated groundwater will be largely retained by the growing mass of water covering the whole earth. The larger the body of water, the more energy is retained. Now imagine that you've got geysers popping out all over the world, of sufficient size and power to spew water at a rate that covers the earth in 40 days and 40 nights. That's a lot of kinetic energy, aka heat.

How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth's crust, doesn't float.

The water was trapped by granite above and basalt below. The rock doesn't have to "float". The crust encircles the entire earth, so there is no need for anything to float. Just like an egg shell doesn't have to float on top of the egg white. Furthermore, the water was in chambers, so there can be additional support between the two rock layers.

I agree that that point of the article (rock doesn't float) is one of the weaker points.

But the difference between an eggshell and the earth's crust is that the egg yolk is not a superheated core of molten rock that's transferring heat energy to the water trapped in subsurface chambers of rock, causing an incredible amount of pressure and resultant strain on the walls of the subsurface chambers of rock.