---

From: Jason Rosendale Kill To: Russ Lopez Msg #417, 04-Sep-93 05:39pm Subject: Flood stuff From:Russ Lopez To:Jason Rosendale JR> Russ, if you remember correctly, I asked you some QUESTIONS about the >flood? Remember? RL> Your question: RL> Where did the water come from and where did it go? RL> The Genesis Flood, Whitcomb and Morris ISBN 0-87552-338-2: Thank you for the listing the page numbers. Now I can laugh at them one at a time. RL> pg. 121 Okay, everybody, gather 'round. See if you can spot the faulty logic in this statement. ---Begin-Quote--- A global rain continuing for forty days, as described in the Bible, would have required a completely different mechanism for its production than is available at the present day. If all the water in our present atmosphere were suddenly precipitated, it would only suffice to cover the ground to a depth of two inches. ... [Says evaporation wouldn't work] .. The normal hydrologic cycle would, therefore, have been incapable of supplying the tremendous amounts of rain the Bible record describes. *>>The implication seems to be that the antediluvian climatology and meteorology were much different from the present. There seems to have been an atmospheric source of water of an entirely different type and order of magnitude than now exists.<<* [Emphasis mine] ---End-Quote--- This goes a long way in explaining it, doesn't it, Russ? If rain couldn't have caused the flood, it must be something else. Couldn't possibly be that Morris and Whitcomb are full of shit. RL> 240 Vapor canopy? You just lost all credibility in my eyes. Don't ask why it took so long. There are a few problems with the vapor canopy conjecture. A few comments from the book... ---Begin-Quote--- The most immediate and obvious of these effects would be to cause a uniformly warm temperate climate around the earth. ---End-Quote--- This is what is known as an "understatement". That much water (someone here did the math on how much water it was) could not exist in the atmosphere at a temperature that humans could tolerate. And let us not forget to mention the effect of the condensation of the water vapor when the flood occurred [sic]. The rise in temperature caused by the liberation of the latent heat of vaporization during a 40-day period would raise the atmospheric temperatures over the entire earth to over 6,400 degrees Fahrenheit. This, by the way, translates into a frosty 3,500 degrees Celsius. It also translates into a flaming ark. ---Begin-Quote--- The inferred antediluvian vapor envelope would have produced this result [regulating the earth's temperature] in much greater degree, with a larger percentage of the sun's incoming radiant energy being absorbed and retained and uniformly distributed over the earth than at present, both seasonally and latitudinally. ---End-Quote--- What a lovely form of logic. "If the water vapor in our atmosphere has a warming effect on the earth, more water vapor would have _more_ of a warming effect." This, unfortunately, is total bullshit. The vapor canopy could not exist at temperatures that humans could tolerate. Look at the planets that have canopies, Russ. Look at how hot they are. However, even if the air was magically cooled from 1 foot to 20 feet of elevation, the water in the atmosphere could not be accommodated as cloud droplets since there would be insufficient nitrogen and oxygen (less than .1 percent) to support them. And, whether the water was in gaseous form or liquid form, it would have prevented nearly all light from reaching the surface. Now, do you want to talk about atmospheric pressure? Do you want to talk about the amount of water vapor in the air? Do you want to hang it up? RL> 254-257 These pages discuss the effect of the vapor canopy on the atmosphere. This has nothing to do with where the water came from. Did you READ the book, or are you just flipping through the index and hoping that I can't dismiss the contents? RL> 305-306, and others. Again, the only link this has to my question is that it mentions the words 'vapor canopy'. At least read the dogmatic pseudo-science that you believe in. It makes it so much easier to make fun of you. RL> Noah's ark? Pg 10 Yes, it is very nice. It says that it was big (437.5 x 72.92 x 43.75, for those playing at home. He used a cubit of 17.5 inches. ). He ended up with a total deck area of 95,700 feet and a total volume of 1,396,000 cubic feet. It doesn't explain how all the animals fit. He does go into a conniption when people say that there should be 14 of each animal of the ark. He shows that there need be only two, and then (IMO) implies that two of each animal is somehow less ridiculous than fourteen. RL> 63-86 and others. Now THIS is interesting. On page 66, Robert Clark is quoted as saying "Every theory of evolution has failed in the light of modern discovery and, not merely failed, but failed so dismally that it seems almost impossible to go on believing in evolution!" Then, on the very next page, it is shown that the Arctic fox, Wolf, Dog, and Hyena have all evolved from the 'dog kind' in 6000 years. It shows how all humans have evolved from Noah since the flood (Neanderthal man, BTW, was part of the 'black kind'). It shows how all equines have evolved from the 'horse kind' in 6000 years. What hypocrites. Now, on to page 68. It gives a list of 1,000,000 different animals that the ark had to carry. I think that this is an understatement, but it doesn't matter. It does forget to list sea animals. Morris/Whitcomb say that the ark didn't have to carry them. They are wrong for several reasons. 1) The Bible says that _everything_ was killed. You can't go against the Bible, can you? 2) The silt that would be in the water (I don't have to explain why there would be a lot of silt, do I?) would have killed all the fish, blocked the feeding apparatus of the coral, etc. 3) Fish have to live in water with a certain salinity, a certain water pressure, and certain other foods. The flood would have disrupted all three of these. So, we have to keep the fish, tunicates, echinoderms, mollusks, coelenterates, and sponges in their own aquariums, set with just the right salinity, at just the right temperature, and just the right water pressure. If you try to stick a coelcanth in the same tank as a goldfish, you'll have problems. Also, you must list 500,000 types of plants. And this is just _living_ animals. When you include all the extinct animals, you have millions upon millions of species. But, since I don't want to quibble with you over that, we'll just go with 1,500,000 different plants and animals. Now, if you look back, the Ark had only 1,396,000 cubic feet of space. That means that there is less than one cubic foot for each animal or plant, its food and water for one year, a habitat for the fish for one year, and room for all the waste. Encroaching on even this small space is room for Noah 'n' Friends to walk around and scoop all that animal shit out the one tiny window. And this is valid only if all the animals could live stacked on top of one another. If the animals were spaced out evenly across the floor, each animal would have less than 3/4 of an inch of space for itself and all its needs. If I didn't have a bias against exclamation points, I would have used one there. If you want, you can try to pass of the hibernation conjecture on us. Please do, as a matter of fact. I'm sure we'd all love to hear how birds all have the latent ability to hibernate. Tell us about how animals got to and from the ark on giant rafts of vegetation. Our mothers don't tell us stories anymore, we have to improvise. RL> Do obviously do not have this book or you wouldn't be wasting my time. I have the book. It is part of my vast 'creationist shelf', or 'toilet library', as some call it. I just wanted you to post it here so we could ALL laugh at the wild conjectures that are paraded around as evidence. I didn't want to do the work. If you had posted it, you would have merely looked like a doofus. Now, you look like a lazy doofus trying to dodge the questions posed to him. RL> Now if you want my own personal, not available in stores, theory about RL> something just ask, but I am not compelled to do your research for RL> you. Do you have any beliefs that differ in any way from anything said in this book? --- GEcho 1.01+ * Origin: Far Point Enclave (316)721-8117 | USR DS/HST (1:291/16.0) SEEN-BY: 13/13 133/2 151/1000 1003 152/20 363/320 369/35 374/1 12 SEEN-BY: 374/14 98 3638/13 3641/1

---

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank