Re: Creationism is a falsified scientific theory


George Evans wrote:
in article 1OednY9Z-KAWznfZRVn_vQ@xxxxxxxxxxxx, Noelie S. Alito at
noelie@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 8/21/06 5:45 PM:

George Evans wrote:

in article timberwoof.spam-0A79D8.15141520082006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Timberwoof at timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 8/20/06 3:14 PM:

In article <Ab3Gg.17397$PO.13832@dukeread03>,
"George Evans" <georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

That depends on where the water was initially. If you put half the water in
the oceans into suspension in the atmosphere, there is plenty.

I don't think the atmosphere can hold that much water...

Water molecules weigh 18 amu, which is significantly lighter than the two
most common molecules in the atmosphere, N2 at 28 amu and O2 at 32 amu. In an
unstirred atmosphere with no particulate content, ALL the water would be
above the O2 and N2. Now what exactly makes you thing the atmosphere can't
hold that much water?

In this case, you have to deal with the total supertonnage of water in vapor
form in the atmosphere represented by 600,000,000 (600 million) cubic
*kilometers* of water ("half the water in the oceans).

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

Consider the significant blockage of sunlight, the increased air pressure at
the land surface, and the total energy release of 600,000,000,000,000,000
liters of water dropping an average of a few kilometers to the land surface.
We're talking a Category 500 hurricane across the whole planet.

OK, I see I've been caught in a slight hyperbole here. This started with a
challenge that you can't get enough water into the atmosphere in order to
rain hard everywhere for 40 days, and in response I threw out the "half"
figure.

Actually, 40 days of rain makes it easy to think about, because 40 feet of
water adds one atmosphere of pressure. So, hypothetically, if you placed 80
feet of pure water in a particulate-free gaseous state above the atmosphere,
there would be enough to rain two feet a day everywhere for 40 days. That
would triple the atmospheric pressure which would be like an 80 foot scuba
dive (maybe then dragons could fly :-)) Also, the layer should be
transparent.

80 feet of water is not enough to make more than minor changes in the
shapes of the continents, let alone cover the highest mountains. So are
we now supposed to believe that the Himalayan plateau was lifted up 5
kilometers in a couple of centuries?

How?

And water vapour may be tranparent to visible light, but it's not
transparent to infra-red. That makes it the most significant greenhouse
gas in the atmosphere.

So you are proposing a climate similar to that of Venus, and a series
of cataclysmic upheavals *after* the flood on a scale many orders of
magnitude greater than anything in recorded history or in the
geological record which somehow didn't attract the attention of the
writers of the Bible.


BTW, when you converted from cubic kilometers to liters (cubic decimeters)
you left out three zeros. For a while, the lower figure sent me into flights
of fancy until I came to, and realized you really can't put half the ocean
on top the atmosphere without squishing the crap out of it. That's when I
checked your math. Thanks a lot. :-)

...Which begs the question of why it all rained out all at once that one
time...

Possibly the sudden introduction of particulate matter around which water
molecules could condense. This could be from one or more super-volcanoes or
asteroid impacts.

An asteroid hit would stick out like a sore thumb in the geologic record,
having something an order of magnitude greater than the Chicxulub asteroid
within the immediate geologic past (that is, less than 10,000 years ago).

As for supervolcanos, none fit the time frame:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano

I will be the first to admit that my hypothesis is wild and crazy compared
to yours,

It's not a hypothesis. It's an unfounded assertion. Hypotheses start
from the evidence.

but just so you can translate from one to the other--in mine, all
the geology from cambrian on up--the layers with once living things buried
in them--were laid down in one year.

Oh dear.
Are we back to the walking oak tree theory?

You truly need to study some geology.


So my hypothesis would lead me to look for the event(s) that started the
first flood event, which is the rain, in pre-cambrian rock. So, I would
expect it to look geologically "old".

And with the radioactive elements in those rocks magically altered so
that they look old.




...and how long it took to evaporate again ... and why it doesn't go on
evaporating...

Obviously it didn't evaporate again. It's all in the oceans now, remember.

Meaning that, before the Flood, we had a greenhouse atmosphere that makes
current global climate like a freeze-dried wonder.

I'm not a meteorologist so I don't know the effects of around a hundred feet
of water in the upper atmosphere, but remember it should be transparent at
least, not clouds.

But it would have a very strong greenhouse effect which would give us
temperatures high enough to melt lead.

RF


George Evans

.