Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2014, 01:11 AM
RE: Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
(20-02-2014 12:57 PM)Paranoidsam Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 10:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  Note: If the sea rose to cover Mt. Everest, the air pressure at that sea level would be about the same as that at the current sea level.

Yes you're right.

But believers claim that the rainfall came from a "water canopy" encircling the globe. I read a figure on Talk Origins saying that that amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would raise the atmospheric pressure to lethal levels causing mass extinction before even a drop fell as rain.

The amount of water required to flood the Earth enough to cover the top of Mount Everest is about 3.4 times the total amount of water currently on the planet (both above and below ground).

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
21-02-2014, 11:11 AM
RE: Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
(20-02-2014 10:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-02-2014 10:12 AM)jockmcdock Wrote:  If Earth were flooded to the top of Everest, the depth of water would be over 29000 feet. Since every 33 feet of water adds 1 unit of atmospheric pressure (14 psi/1 bar), pressure at the CURRENT sea level would be about 880 atmospheres. Ouch!! Squashed Nemo.

The other problem is light. If you've ever snorkelled or dived, you'll know that light disappears pretty quickly as you go deeper. Even by 30 feet, reds and yellows are gone and everything is blue with a touch of green. A couple of hundred feet down, everything is black (so I'm told - no personal experience). So even the flora wouldn't survive.

Note: If the sea rose to cover Mt. Everest, the air pressure at that sea level would be about the same as that at the current sea level.

If I read jockmcdock's post correctly he is saying that at current sea level elevation you would be covered by 29,000 feet of water or about 880 atmospheres. You are saying that at the NEW current sea level 29,000 feet above the current one the air pressure would be the same as at the old sea level.

At 29,000 feet air pressure is NOT the same 14.7 psi as in our current sea level see here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/everest/exp...ssure.html
or about a 1/3 of 14.7 psi

(Pressure at sea level is approximately 101.325 kPa. Pressure at the summit of Mt. Everest is only abotu 30.13 kPa, or about 29.7% of that of sea level. Pressure is properly reported in SI units of pascal (kPa = kilopascal, or one-thousand pascals). )

Just wanted to clear that up. Smile

Throughout history conversions happen at the point of a sword, deconversions at the point of a pen - FC

I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. - Mark Twain in Eruption
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 01:00 PM
RE: Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
(06-02-2014 07:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(06-02-2014 06:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  There was no flood. And evolution is evolution, the distinction is just silly. "Macroevoltion" is "microevolution" over a long time span.

Yes I know there is not flood however the flood is what they like to most after jesus,hell,and the end times prophecy. So if you show problems with the flood they will have to run to magic. Second they do that then they'll show the bible(or quran) is not scientific and will have no choice but to sit and wait for its fall.

"Run to magic". So true. How do they explain the almost 10,000 year old tree in Sweden. Somehow it magically made it through a world flood.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...104320.htm

"If things aren't funny anymore then they're exactly what they are and life is just one long dental appointment interrupted occasionally by something exciting like waiting or falling asleep" Jason Robards in A Thousand Clowns
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 01:57 PM
RE: Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
(21-02-2014 11:11 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 10:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  Note: If the sea rose to cover Mt. Everest, the air pressure at that sea level would be about the same as that at the current sea level.

If I read jockmcdock's post correctly he is saying that at current sea level elevation you would be covered by 29,000 feet of water or about 880 atmospheres. You are saying that at the NEW current sea level 29,000 feet above the current one the air pressure would be the same as at the old sea level.

At 29,000 feet air pressure is NOT the same 14.7 psi as in our current sea level see here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/everest/exp...ssure.html
or about a 1/3 of 14.7 psi

(Pressure at sea level is approximately 101.325 kPa. Pressure at the summit of Mt. Everest is only abotu 30.13 kPa, or about 29.7% of that of sea level. Pressure is properly reported in SI units of pascal (kPa = kilopascal, or one-thousand pascals). )

Just wanted to clear that up. Smile

Sorry, no. You are making the same mistake.

Atmospheric pressure is proportional to the altitude above sea level. Not some past sea level - just whatever the current sea level is.

It is the weight of the column of air above you. Whether you measure it in kg/m*sec² or lbs/in², it's the weight of air above you.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
21-02-2014, 04:49 PM
RE: Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
(21-02-2014 01:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 11:11 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  At 29,000 feet air pressure is NOT the same 14.7 psi as in our current sea level see here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/everest/exp...ssure.html
or about a 1/3 of 14.7 psi

Sorry, no. You are making the same mistake.

Atmospheric pressure is proportional to the altitude above sea level. Not some past sea level - just whatever the current sea level is.

I concur, Chas.

FC, if the earth were flooded to 29000 feet, where would the air go? Answer: it would simply continue to sit on top of the water. So air pressure would simply rise at "higher" altitudes. But since "higher" is defined relative to sea level...things change but stay the same.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 12:38 AM
RE: Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
My retired bio professor, with a Ph.D., told me there are 5 total mechanisms of evolution including Darwin's. He was old when teaching and even older now and does not remember them. Some mechanisms have been proven wrong and for others the hypotheses continue to change, but mechanisms are roughly the same as originally stated. Anyone else ever heard of this? I have never found anything about this on a web search and I did not take a class in evolution with him.

(06-02-2014 01:27 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(06-02-2014 11:11 AM)theophilus Wrote:  There are fresh water and salt water fish now because the are bodies of water with fresh water and some with salt water, but that might not have been the case before the flood. We have no way of knowing whether the oceans were salty then.

That sounds like a testable claim. We do, in fact, know that the oceans have been salty for quite some time:

[Image: salinity-oceans-earth-histo.gif]

There's even a field of study on the subject. Ask the scientists. They have a way of knowing, as opposed to guessing and making things up to suit their narrative.


(06-02-2014 11:11 AM)theophilus Wrote:  There is more than one kind of evolution.

No, there's not.


Edit: Ninja'd by the OP!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 12:47 AM
RE: Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
Salt water has more density and usually contains more mass than fresh water. It's possible that ocean and fresh water would not mix or stay mixed after violent movement of the earth during and after the flood. The water would be layered and would effect buoyancy and change movement of debris in the water. Objects/wildlife/plant life depending on their own density and mobility might sink into fresh water and float above salt water. Rock and dirt would sink differently every time shaken up in such a mixture. The volume of rock and dirt would dictate what was crushed and killed or not crushed. My kids did this in class....we are about to replicate it at home.

(06-02-2014 11:11 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 08:32 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  There are two types of fish. They're fresh water and salt water fish.

(04-02-2014 02:21 AM)Cleanholio Wrote:  It probably doesn't help creationists that 75% of the existing saltwater fish species on Earth actually evolved from freshwater species...

There are fresh water and salt water fish now because the are bodies of water with fresh water and some with salt water, but that might not have been the case before the flood. We have no way of knowing whether the oceans were salty then. If they weren't then all existing saltwater fish evolved from freshwater fish. In using the word "evolved" I am not denying creation. There is more than one kind of evolution.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i4f.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...3/genetics
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 03:54 AM
RE: Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
(02-07-2014 12:38 AM)Snapp Wrote:  My retired bio professor, with a Ph.D., told me there are 5 total mechanisms of evolution including Darwin's. He was old when teaching and even older now and does not remember them. Some mechanisms have been proven wrong and for others the hypotheses continue to change, but mechanisms are roughly the same as originally stated. Anyone else ever heard of this? I have never found anything about this on a web search and I did not take a class in evolution with him.

(06-02-2014 01:27 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  That sounds like a testable claim. We do, in fact, know that the oceans have been salty for quite some time:

[Image: salinity-oceans-earth-histo.gif]

There's even a field of study on the subject. Ask the scientists. They have a way of knowing, as opposed to guessing and making things up to suit their narrative.



No, there's not.


Edit: Ninja'd by the OP!

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...isms.shtml

[Image: get_some_by_addmedia-d78ip4k.gif] All request for metazoa info and my larger projects should be sent PM
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 03:59 AM
RE: Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
(02-07-2014 12:47 AM)Snapp Wrote:  Salt water has more density and usually contains more mass than fresh water. It's possible that ocean and fresh water would not mix or stay mixed after violent movement of the earth during and after the flood. The water would be layered and would effect buoyancy and change movement of debris in the water. Objects/wildlife/plant life depending on their own density and mobility might sink into fresh water and float above salt water. Rock and dirt would sink differently every time shaken up in such a mixture. The volume of rock and dirt would dictate what was crushed and killed or not crushed. My kids did this in class....we are about to replicate it at home.

(06-02-2014 11:11 AM)theophilus Wrote:  There are fresh water and salt water fish now because the are bodies of water with fresh water and some with salt water, but that might not have been the case before the flood. We have no way of knowing whether the oceans were salty then. If they weren't then all existing saltwater fish evolved from freshwater fish. In using the word "evolved" I am not denying creation. There is more than one kind of evolution.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i4f.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...3/genetics

First source to prove your claim,second this still doesn't help, because a certain amount of salinity is needed. Even the slightest change could kill some fish.

[Image: get_some_by_addmedia-d78ip4k.gif] All request for metazoa info and my larger projects should be sent PM
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 06:19 AM
RE: Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i4f.htm

Micro-evolution is the process that is responsible for the many variations of some species of living things, such as dogs and finches. Macro-evolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird. It is argued by evolutionists that given enough time, the small changes caused by micro-evolution can add up to big enough changes to create entirely new species. Although this argument may seem reasonable on the surface, closer examination shows that it must be false.

When Darwin was on the Galapagos Islands, he correctly observed that some finches, which had been separated from other finches of the same species, had acquired distinctive characteristics (unusual beaks or feathers). He correctly concluded that these birds had evolved, in a particular sense of the word. They truly had undergone micro-evolution.

Most creationists agree that micro-evolution does occur. In fact, Biblical creationists insist that it does. Micro-evolution is their explanation for how all the human races came from Noah's family. They say the races of men are the result of micro-evolution. Let's see how micro-evolution works.

I took a look at your first argument!

I love the use of English that gives away the weakness of its argument in the fact it failed to state things clearly and with out ambiguity!

I have problems with the following!

1.Macro-evolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird.

2. It is argued by evolutionists that given enough time, the small changes caused by micro-evolution can add up to big enough changes to create entirely new species.
Yes scientist will "ARGUE"! However, evolution is called a theory but its as good as saying its a fact.

3.It start by saying its a "MYTHICAL". You have already placed it in the bin as having no validation! However, you later state that Darwin had it right for the finishes but that was something that was in the small timescale. We as people who only live for a short time can only observe on the small scale but we are talking about a much longer time scale!

4. Although this argument may seem reasonable on the surface, closer examination shows that it must be false.

Now the use of the word "MUST"

Now I love the English language and this shows me the word is used as a determination of hope! It has ambiguity. If it stated "it is false". Then that is a clear and does not have wriggle room! If this is to be used as a way of determination on how words are to be translated the words should not have ambiguity!


5. Most creationists agree that micro-evolution does occur. In fact, Biblical creationists insist that it does. Micro-evolution is their explanation for how all the human races came from Noah's family. They say the races of men are the result of micro-evolution.

So, now you are forced to think as they would like you to do and say this is how mankind changed and evolved in to all the different "kinds" (Ken Hams word not mine). Of man!

Now it needs to be shown how it worked? However this is no evidence given! When I look at the genetic information I can see the drift of mankind across this plaint and it took, longer than seven thousand years!

Thanks I have had a nice time playing, but if you want me to talk a bit more pleas drop me a line!!

K:

Arguing with a zealot is only slightly easier than tunneling through a mountain with your forehead!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: