Re: Creationism is a falsified scientific theory

in article 1156274521.571527.211440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Richard
Forrest at richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 8/22/06 12:22 PM:

George Evans wrote:

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

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?

My model involves the impact of a number of massive solar system bodies over
a period of approximately half a year. The energy of the impacts, dissipated
by high speed tidal action, direct excavation, and oscillations induced in
the motion of the earth would be the cause of geological reshaping. The rain
is merely the first effect caused by dust rising into the upper atmosphere.

The tektonic motion we see in plates is a remnant of more rapid motion in
the period shortly after the flood as the earth absorbed the excess energy
in the form of massive continental collisions and uplifts.

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.

First, this world could stand to be warmer if the warmth could be
distributed better. Flora and fauna obviously thrive in the tropics whereas
large areas near the poles are practically devoid of life. Venus, Richard?
Please!

Second, the peak cataclysmic upheavals occurred during the five of six month
of water level recession. Through most of that all potential recorders of
history were floating, isolated from any seismic activity. But fortunately
this seems to be nicely recorded in the geological record.

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.

As did this one. When I was a little boy I learned about Noah and the Flood.
When I got on my own I began noticing geological formations that were
contorted in places and smooth and uniform in others. So I studied geology.
Then I began to wonder if these could be explained by the story I had heard
as a child so I reread it and started formulating a hypothesis.

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.

Never heard of it.

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.

I don't know what to make of radioisotopic dating.

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.

You don't know.

George Evans

.