World Wide Flood Of Noah

[Rob Osborn]

This Rob, you still haven't addressed it..

This is where I don't belive- I don't agree with the annual lake varve data. I do not see lake varves as a very accurate way to measure what was happening thousands of years ago.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

I read nothing in Scripture that has Moses having seen the days of Noah.

Have you ever heard of the "Pearl of Great Price", an LDS document?

[shalamabobbi]

This is where I don't belive- I don't agree with the annual lake varve data. I do not see lake varves as a very accurate way to measure what was happening thousands of years ago.

I see. So the climate variation agreement and C14 agreement is an accident, a coincidence?

Here's some more data:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleolim/paleolim_data.html

Lot's of coincidences..

If you google "The Variability of Holocene Climate Change: Evidence from Varved" you'll get a PDF document that is an interesting read showing how varves record climate change that agrees with knowledge from other sources including scripture.

Here is a Christian site that accepts these dating methods. Note how the second reference confirms the date of the cave dug to supply the Jews with water during the seige under Hezekiah.

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/solomon.html

[Calm]

the face value of the words.

Lot of unspoken assumptions going on behind that phrase.

[shalamabobbi]

A Global Flood Model.

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Catastrophic-Plate-Tectonics-A-Global-Flood-Model.pdf

The problem with this *model* is that it does not account for all the facts which is the purpose of a model. Hence it doesn't meet the definition of that term and is not a model.

We would like to propose a catastrophic plate tectonics theory as a framework for Earth history.

No doubt. Unfortunately the facts disagree with this..

Once there, earthquake-induced sea waves with ocean-to-land movement redistributed sediment toward continental interiors. Resulting sedimentary

units tend to be thick, uniform, of unknown provenance, and extend over regional, inter-regional, and even continental areas.

All this without disturbing any lake varves anywhere..

According to Oard’s (1987, 1990a) model, by about

five centuries after the Flood, the cooling oceans had

led to the advance of continental glaciers and the

formation of polar ice caps (see also Vardiman, 1993).

Complete with 900,000 years worth of varves..

The Flood model presented here suggests a

substantial number of research projects for young-

earth creationists. Besides the further elaboration

and quantification of the model, the predictions listed

above need to be examined. Most significantly, we

still need to solve the heat problem (Baumgardner,

1987; Wise, 1987) and the radiometric dating problem

(Baumgardner, 1987).

No doubt. Good luck on those two..

After paying them tuition for a worthless degree maybe you can land a job working for ICR.

I doubt it,

The 9 individuals running ICR have a special invitation for you..

http://www.icr.org/give/

Oh, I'm sorry, it's not polite to laugh..

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

Yep. I still don't see a global flood of Noah's day.

Ps;

•How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?

•If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.

•If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.

•A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.

•Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.

Edited September 2, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

Yep. I still don't see a global flood of Noah's day.

Ps;

•How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?

•If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.

•If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.

•A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.

•Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.

The flood waters came from more than one source. Personally i see the flood waters as coming from the fountains of the great deep (under the earth). Genesis says that all the fountains of the great deep were broken up. Massive amounts of water were thus coming up from perhaps apparent cracks and fissures in the earths plates. In D&C 133 it speaks of Christ's return and his commanding the flood waters (now our oceans for the most part) to return back from whence they came- the north countries. The north countries have been debated as being those lands which originate under or inside our earth.

23 He shall command the great deep, and it shall be driven back into the north countries, and the islands shall become one land;

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 133:23)

[Hughes]

Rob:

Yep. I still don't see a global flood of Noah's day.

Ps;

•How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?

•If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.

•If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.

•A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.

•Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.

The theory I've heard answers this question and the problem of the ice age.

What I've heard is that the vast amounts of underwater volcanism possibly associated with large plate movements caused vast amounts of evaporation leading to the large amounts of water in the Atmosphere which then fell as rain of course, thus causing the flood, where on the poles it snowed, causing vast amounts of ice to be deposited as well.

[shalamabobbi]

The north countries have been debated as being those lands which originate under or inside our earth.

Not the hollow earth theory with an interior sun and all?

There would be no gravity inside. Things could stick to the surface due to rotation but the interior sun would be free to drift without any force to hold it in place relative to the earth.

Draw a circle and a random dot anywhere in the interior. Place two non-parallel lines through this dot. The further intersection with the circle covers more area than the closer intersection. The variation is 1/r2 just like gravity. With a sphere in the limit with steradian measure using calculus this is exact. Everywhere else except at the equator the angle of the centrifugal force would not be perpendicular to the surface. By the time you got to the entrance at the north pole you would be on the face of a steep cliff with no gravity.

[katherine the great]

Not the hollow earth theory with an interior sun and all?

There would be no gravity inside. Things could stick to the surface due to rotation but the interior sun would be free to drift without any force to hold it in place relative to the earth.

Draw a circle and a random dot anywhere in the interior. Place two non-parallel lines through this dot. The further intersection with the circle covers more area than the closer intersection. The variation is 1/r2 just like gravity. With a sphere in the limit with steradian measure using calculus this is exact. Everywhere else except at the equator the angle of the centrifugal force would not be perpendicular to the surface. By the time you got to the entrance at the north pole you would be on the face of a steep cliff with no gravity.

shalmabobbi, you have the patience of Job. (Your posts remind me of "The Dude"s--a former poster at FAIR) I just don't have the patience. You cannot reason with a person who is able to suspend all reason and thinking in order to adhere to the most literalist of religious belief. The answer always boils down to "God did things differently in that situation."

[shalamabobbi]

shalmabobbi, you have the patience of Job. (Your posts remind me of "The Dude"s--a former poster at FAIR) I just don't have the patience. You cannot reason with a person who is able to suspend all reason and thinking in order to adhere to the most literalist of religious belief. The answer always boils down to "God did things differently in that situation."

I converted at the age of 17 and grew up on McConkie and J F Smith and Melvin A Cook. Luckily by the time I discovered their literalist ideas didn't hold water I also discovered that there was dissagreement among the brethren over these matters otherwise because of my spiritual experiences I would have had to check into a mental ward.

Hopefully Rob and others like him are younger and have that as an excuse..

[keith_brian]

The flood waters came from more than one source. Personally i see the flood waters as coming from the fountains of the great deep (under the earth). Genesis says that all the fountains of the great deep were broken up. Massive amounts of water were thus coming up from perhaps apparent cracks and fissures in the earths plates. In D&C 133 it speaks of Christ's return and his commanding the flood waters (now our oceans for the most part) to return back from whence they came- the north countries. The north countries have been debated as being those lands which originate under or inside our earth.

23 He shall command the great deep, and it shall be driven back into the north countries, and the islands shall become one land;

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 133:23)

Seismographic data shows strongly that the earth is not hollow and contains very little water in its interior. Try again.

Edited September 2, 2011 by keith_brian

[Ron Beron]

Seismographic data shows strongly that the earth is not hollow and contains very little water in its interior. Try again.

Actually, the Earth was covered in water and then ice....2.5 billion years ago. I don't think Noah even noticed. There is no mention of ice in the Genesis account maybe the Babylonian?

[Rob Osborn]

Not the hollow earth theory with an interior sun and all?

There would be no gravity inside. Things could stick to the surface due to rotation but the interior sun would be free to drift without any force to hold it in place relative to the earth.

Draw a circle and a random dot anywhere in the interior. Place two non-parallel lines through this dot. The further intersection with the circle covers more area than the closer intersection. The variation is 1/r2 just like gravity. With a sphere in the limit with steradian measure using calculus this is exact. Everywhere else except at the equator the angle of the centrifugal force would not be perpendicular to the surface. By the time you got to the entrance at the north pole you would be on the face of a steep cliff with no gravity.

You actually would have gravity inside the earth, just not as much pulling in one direction like we do on the outside of the earth. At the very center you would actually have a sun being suspended due to the equal and opposing forces of gravity (magnetism). If one were on the inside they would still mostly be attracted to the immediate ground underneath them because they are closest to it. But, they would still be attracted to the other parts all around them, the effect being, that gravity wouldn't have as much an effect directly underneath them. Because of this, life probably grows taller there because the force of gravity isn't as strong.

[Rob Osborn]

I converted at the age of 17 and grew up on McConkie and J F Smith and Melvin A Cook. Luckily by the time I discovered their literalist ideas didn't hold water I also discovered that there was dissagreement among the brethren over these matters otherwise because of my spiritual experiences I would have had to check into a mental ward.

Hopefully Rob and others like him are younger and have that as an excuse..

I actually used to believe the flood was a hoax- a made up story. Then I grew up, realized the rational of the flood and it was then I discrded what modern science has to say. I have no excuse because I have already arrived at the truth.

[Rob Osborn]

Seismographic data shows strongly that the earth is not hollow and contains very little water in its interior. Try again.

What, based on their opionion of what a wave graph should look like? Unbelievable!

[Alan]

What, based on their opionion of what a wave graph should look like? Unbelievable!

Here, here! Far too many people have blind faith in what the scientists say. We have to understand; scientists are not, for the most part, objective.

[shalamabobbi]

You actually would have gravity inside the earth, just not as much pulling in one direction like we do on the outside of the earth. At the very center you would actually have a sun being suspended due to the equal and opposing forces of gravity (magnetism). If one were on the inside they would still mostly be attracted to the immediate ground underneath them because they are closest to it. But, they would still be attracted to the other parts all around them, the effect being, that gravity wouldn't have as much an effect directly underneath them. Because of this, life probably grows taller there because the force of gravity isn't as strong.

Oh my, we popped a circuit breaker..

No Rob there would be no gravity, which BTW is not the same thing as magnetism.

Edit to add: You can see a demonstration of this with spacecraft in orbit about the earth. No gravity inside the craft itself. However wastes ejected from the astronauts will orbit the craft from without..

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

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/gravity.html

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

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=56966

And let's not forget the issue of the deadly rays from a sun, from which we are shielded by the magnetic field of the earth on the surface, but would destroy any life otherwise..

http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm

And how do you account for the gravity on the surface of the earth if it is due to a shell? What sort of density are you proposing for this shell?

Edit again: And where are the cooling vents to release the build-up of heat from an interior sun? Fusion releases a great deal of energy..

One final edit: Since no gravity would exist to attach you to the interior of a shell, and with the existence of an interior sun, everything would actually fall into that sun as there would be a gravitational attraction to that sun. The spin rate of the planet would be too slow to keep you in orbit about an interior sun..

One more final edit:

But Melo says physics sets a limit - based on the degree to which matter can be crammed together - on the smallest star possible. "I don't think we are going to find stars whose radius is much smaller than those we are observing now," he says.

He hopes exoplanet surveys will soon turn up a transiting brown dwarf, a type of object that straddles the mass range between planets and stars. At between 13 and 75 times the mass of Jupiter, brown dwarfs are not massive enough to burn hydrogen like stars,

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7098-planet-search-reveals-smallest-star-ever.html

http://www.wereyouwondering.com/what-is-the-smallest-star-in-the-universe/

Maybe it's an anti-matter star and since it's antimatter it emits anti-gravity. (That's a joke, sun(misspelling intentional)). See how easy pseudo-science is..

Edited September 2, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[Rob Osborn]

Oh my, we popped a circuit breaker..

No Rob there would be no gravity, which BTW is not the same thing as magnetism.

Edit to add: You can see a demonstration of this with spacecraft in orbit about the earth. No gravity inside the craft itself. However wastes ejected from the astronauts will orbit the craft from without..

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

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/gravity.html

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

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=56966

And let's not forget the issue of the deadly rays from a sun, from which we are shielded by the magnetic field of the earth on the surface, but would destroy any life otherwise..

http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm

And how do you account for the gravity on the surface of the earth if it is due to a shell? What sort of density are you proposing for this shell?

Edit again: And where are the cooling vents to release the build-up of heat from an interior sun? Fusion releases a great deal of energy..

One final edit: Since no gravity would exist to attach you to the interior of a shell, and with the existence of an interior sun, everything would actually fall into that sun as there would be a gravitational attraction to that sun. The spin rate of the planet would be too slow to keep you in orbit about an interior sun..

One more final edit:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7098-planet-search-reveals-smallest-star-ever.html

http://www.wereyouwondering.com/what-is-the-smallest-star-in-the-universe/

Maybe it's an anti-matter star and since it's antimatter it emits anti-gravity. (That's a joke, sun(misspelling intentional)). See how easy pseudo-science is..

Oh my, bad logic indeed!

What point are we attracted to on the earth? Is it the very center of the earth pulling us in? No, it can't be. So is it half way? No not necessarily. We are attracted by the "mass" of an object that is "closest to us". This means that we are most attracted to the ground immediately under our feet. from that point outwards the attraction gets less and less. In essence, what holds me planted tot he earth is not some force clear under or at the center of the earth but the mantle which is not far beneath my feet- that is the relationship of force being closest to me attratcing me to that point. If I were on the inside of the earth on it's surface, I am still attracted tot he mass closest to me which is still under my feet. But, because the other forces of which I am also partially attracted to me are all around me and not just under my feet, gravity will act less holding me down. Thus there would still be gravity, just less of it.

As for the fusion vents, that is very easy-

NASA has now concluded that the Auroras are not created by cosmic rays or particles from the sun but rather they are created by the ion fountains spouting upwards from underneath the water and ice at the poles. Lest me say that again- Ions are being shot upwards into the atmosphere from inside the earth at the north and south pole. Only a type of "sun" could generate this type of fountain. Go research polar ion fountains and auroras. Yes, even scientists are way off it seems!

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/ast09dec97_3/

Edited September 2, 2011 by Rob Osborn

[katherine the great]

I feel like I'm in an episode of The Twilight Zone...

[katherine the great]

Here, here! Far too many people have blind faith in what the scientists say. We have to understand; scientists are not, for the most part, objective.

That is an absurd generalization. Religion is not objective. Religion begins with the answer. Science begins with a question, from whence comes a hypothesis from whence comes the gathering of enormous amounts of data that supports the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is falsified then it is discarded. This is actually fitting because religion's purpose is to give us answers about our spirits and our relationship to Deity (something which cannot be proved scientifically), not answers about the natural world.

[shalamabobbi]

I feel like I'm in an episode of The Twilight Zone...

Rob's posts make me wince.

Participation in this thread may result in the development of a permanent tick.

I'll reply - I must be insane - but right now, I have to shower and change my clothes, as I laughed so hard I wet myself..

Edited September 3, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[Calm]

Oh my, bad logic indeed!

http://en.wikipedia....i/Shell_theorem

In classical mechanics, the shell theorem gives gravitational simplifications that can be applied to objects inside or outside a spherically symmetrical body. This theorem has particular application to astronomy.

Isaac Newton proved the shell theorem saying that:

1. A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre.
2. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e. a hollow ball), no gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.
3. Inside a solid sphere of constant density the gravitational force varies linearly with distance from the centre, becoming zero at the centre of mass.

A hollow earth would be a case of #2, not #3 (which is the math you appear to be using) would it not, Rob?

PS to shal, I think I've got the right theorem, but it's been 30+ years since my last calculus class even if I did get an A and I am half asleep on some heavy duty insomnia stuff so am rather loopy at the moment (though at least the letters aren't coming off the page anymore and dancing). Correct me if I'm wrong please.

Rob, you are ignoring the problem of the empty shell plus you are ignoring the problem of the mass of the mass further away (in the case of the hollow shell (above and around you as opposed to directly below your feet) from you balancing out any mass that is below your feet. We are attracted to all the mass in the universe, the only difference is that mass that is closer to us has a greater effect upon us due to its proximity. That does not mean other mass has no effect on us, just that depending on the direction of the force, its addition (if it is in the same direction as the closest mass) is too small to add much to the effect or (if in the direction opposite the mass closest) too small to take away much from the effect. Get enough mass and the distance effect is 'overcomed'.

While the other mass is further away from you, there is much more of it, zeroing out the opposing forces. Remember with the shell, if you are closer to one part of the shell so that its mass's force grows on you, this is canceled out by the increase in mass on the opposite side (think of it visually where an object at the center of a shell has equal mass around it, while an object that has moved close enough to the inner shell that it sits on it is in close contact with a small amount of the shell in front of itself, but has the overwhelming leftover mass of the shell behind it to counterbalance.

If I am thinking right, due to the canceling out of the opposing forces due to the masses around you, if you are standing on the inside layer of a hollow earth with your head pointing 'down' to an inner sun, the only mass exerting a noncanceled force upon you would be the inner sun, which means you would fall toward the sun and either go splat or hiss.....

Since the inner sun is inside a hollow earth where all parts of the shell's mass are canceled out by other parts of the shell's mass on the opposite side, there is no gravity attaching to the inner sun from the earth and thus no way for it to remain in place.

Edited September 2, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

There's even a wiki on the subject which keeps things simple:

Someone on the inside of a hollow Earth would not experience a significant outward pull and could not easily stand on the inner surface; rather, the theory of gravity implies that a person on the inside would be nearly weightless. This was first shown by Newton, whose shell theorem mathematically predicts a gravitational force (from the shell) of zero everywhere inside a spherically symmetric hollow shell of matter, regardless of the shell's thickness. A tiny gravitational force would arise from the fact that the Earth does not have a perfectly symmetrical spherical shape, as well as forces from other bodies such as the Moon. The centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation would pull a person (on the inner surface) outwards if the person was traveling at the same velocity as the Earth's interior and was in contact with the ground on the interior, but even the maximum centrifugal force at the equator is only 1/300 of ordinary Earth gravity.

The mass of the planet also indicates that the hollow Earth hypothesis is unfeasible. Should the Earth be largely hollow, its mass would be much lower and thus its gravity on the outer surface would be much lower than it is.

http://en.wikipedia....w_Earth#Gravity

also

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=185502

Edited September 2, 2011 by calmoriah

[altersteve]

What if the Flood was neither global nor local? What if God flooded many parts of the earth, but not the whole thing, just the places that He felt needed to be cleansed? And if it was global, what if the Flood was actually many floods that took place throughout the world over the course of many years so that the cleansing of the earth happened gradually? I think that fits with God's nature better than the sudden destruction of all of His children at once, and out of all the options, that one to me seems most likely.

But I still don't really care about the Flood one way or the other. All I know is that a prophet named Noah lived a very long time ago, God told him to build an ark, and he and his family and the animals were saved while God destroyed many other people with a flood. We must not let ourselves forget the message.

Edited September 3, 2011 by altersteve