Flood and Ark

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.

Postby BGoodForGoodSake » Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:27 pm

sandy_mcd wrote:
Jbuza wrote:With all the erosion and on all the various continents and rivers depositing deltas like the ones at Ephesus, should the continents not, over a 200+ million year period, loose the shape of their ancient coastlines? Currently, according to the US Army Corp of Engineers, the United States coastlines are in serious danger. The Louisiana coastline is being lost at a rate of at least 25sq. miles per year.
1) Actually it is the edges of the continental shelves which match up better than the coastlines. http://www.earthscape.org/l2/wil01/wil0 ... coastlines

[Note added in edit. Weird - I inserted the above picture link to http://www.earthscape.org/l2/wil01/wil01_4_3.gif and sometimes it shows up and sometimes a logon for http://www.earthscape.org shows up. Anybody know why ?]
It requires registration.
For those who do not want to take the time to register.
Image
More information here
http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/es0802/es0802page01.cfm
Attachments
wil01_4_3.gif
wil01_4_3.gif (37.63 KiB) Viewed 1314 times
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

sandy_mcd
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:56 pm

Postby sandy_mcd » Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:12 pm

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:It requires registration.
For those who do not want to take the time to register.
Thanks for the picture post.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.

Postby BGoodForGoodSake » Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:39 pm

You're welcome.
=)

So now what we have is the following.

All the fossils were created by the flood.
So all the animals in the fossils need to have been on the ark.
But in order to do this all the animals had to be juvinile and the ark is larger than any wooden ship built in modern times.
All the lands were connected as pangaea so that the animals could return.
Somehow the animals knew where they came from.
All cats came from one type yet Jbuza doesn't beleive this. However for the purpose of explaining how the ark floated he is unsure.
The continents then split some 150 years after the flood.
It took 6 hours.
There is no mention of this in the bible.
The Kinetic Energy in this split was calculated to be 1.25x10^26 Joules of energy.
In contrast a large nuclear warhead releases about 84,000 TJ or 8.4*10^16 Joules of energy.

The energy which caused this kinetic motion had to be at least the same as that of 10,000,000,000 (thats 10 billion) large nuclear warheads.

And I suppose this would just warm the seas a few degrees?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm

Postby Jbuza » Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:07 pm

Bgood Wrote
Also what is the cause of the striping? Why would there be alternating bands of magnetite some which are oriented in todays north-south magnetic field and others which are reversed?

Well it has been hypothesized that gravitational forces could have caused the pangea to break apart. I think it could indicate that there have been periods of fluctuation in the magnetic field. Not to sure I will have to read more about it.
-----------

Also it appears from what I have read that these magnetic anomolies are not as consistent or widepsread as what was once hypothesized. Further some major seafloor sampling operations have demonstrated that the idea that there are distinct bands of pole reversal running the length of ridges and such is simply untrue.

There are areas that suggest some change in magnetic field. Several hypothesis say that the drift was caused by the magnetic field changes.

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm

Postby Jbuza » Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:16 pm

Bgood
In any case the water in the Atlantic did not originate there, correct? Any life found in the atlantic would have to have come from other sources.


I'm not really to sure about that I mean the oceans would have existed with their life before the split of pangea, so it just kind of seems like the continents shifted and the ocean got mixed arounf amongst the continents. I understand your point, I think. But there are any number of observations like it some areas have organisms that others don't. It is clear the environments are different, so some fish would survive better in one area than another. I think it is reasonable to think that the vastness of the pacific would have been the least disturbed by continental drift. So your thinking is that all species should exist in that “mother” ocean. And it is a good point, but I don't find it troublesome to just point out that they have each become a unique ecosystem, and there is no way to know the variables that effect species survivability in the oceans.
--------------
I was only stressing that the organisms in the atlantic could not have originated there.

I agree they must have come with the water, or migrated.
---------------
Is it possible for carribean coral species to have reached the new atlantic ocean?
What about the species of vent creatures? They must have been created before the cataclysm, where did they come from?

IS it possible for them to have reached were the are? What is Caribbean when all you have is sea and land?
-----------------
But this occured in a span of six hours?

Don't know.
-----------------
I thought the whole point was that current forces could not have caused the continents to drift?
Yet they do?

No the whole point was that since 200,000,000 million years ago never existed, plate tectonics, uniform geology, and evolution do not adequately explain or predict the actual world, so there must be the explanation of how the world actually existed and the mechanisms must be that actually operated in this world.
----------------
Exactly how much of the Atlantic Ocean is due to the innitial event?

That is hard to determine. I can say that with GPS technology and addition of receiving stations in new places that more will be known about this whole process within the next eight or ten years. There already is a great deal of information since GPS that is a problem for currently accepted theories. It is clear there would have been some shoreline erosion and building.
------------------

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm

Postby Jbuza » Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:24 pm

sandy_mcd wrote:1) Actually it is the edges of the continental shelves which match up better than the coastlines.


Agreed. Also there are some large areas under the oceans that also appear to be continental crust


sandy_mcd wrote:2) Therefore the Mississippi river delta at the bottom of Louisiana doesn't really count. The erosion there is also a special case. In the early 1900's, the river mouth was channelized with jetties by Eads to make shipping easier and levees were built to protect New Orleans and other communities. So the land was not replenished by annual floods anymore; most of the tons of sediment went straight out to the much deeper ocean. On top of that, channels were cut in the marshlands, e.g. by oil and gas exploration companies, which allowed saltier water to intrude, killing the plant life which held the soil together. As a direct result, Hurricane Katrina caused much more damage than it would have in the past since much of the intervening marshlands which would have dampened the storm's intensity have disappeared.


I'm not sure I agree here, but would at least agree that it is clear that man impacts the costline also. IT is still a valid observation. Man would have been impacting this earth since he stepped foot on it. The mouths of rivers deposit land into the oceans, and what the man was pointing out is that there doesn't appears to be 200 million years worth of erosion to the continents.

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm

Postby Jbuza » Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:26 pm

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:You're welcome.
=)

So now what we have is the following.

All the fossils were created by the flood.
So all the animals in the fossils need to have been on the ark.
But in order to do this all the animals had to be juvinile and the ark is larger than any wooden ship built in modern times.
All the lands were connected as pangaea so that the animals could return.
Somehow the animals knew where they came from.
All cats came from one type yet Jbuza doesn't beleive this. However for the purpose of explaining how the ark floated he is unsure.
The continents then split some 150 years after the flood.
It took 6 hours.
There is no mention of this in the bible.
The Kinetic Energy in this split was calculated to be 1.25x10^26 Joules of energy.
In contrast a large nuclear warhead releases about 84,000 TJ or 8.4*10^16 Joules of energy.

The energy which caused this kinetic motion had to be at least the same as that of 10,000,000,000 (thats 10 billion) large nuclear warheads.

And I suppose this would just warm the seas a few degrees?


Hey I think your getting it.

Note one smallish hurricane named Katrina that didn't seem to budge the continent as a whole is estimate to be 3*10^17 joules. Hurricanes like this have been unable to even twist south Florida off north America, let alone entirely restructure the entire map.

And Yes both Sandy-mcd and myself have demonstrated that that it would have a minimal effect on the oceans as a whole. You are right 3 degrees or vaporize 3.~ percent of the ocean.

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm

Postby Jbuza » Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:38 pm

However for the purpose of explaining how the ark floated he is unsure.


I'm thinking by displacing water, let me know what you think.

dad

Postby dad » Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:50 pm

Jbuza wrote:Bgood
In any case the water in the Atlantic did not originate there, correct? Any life found in the atlantic would have to have come from other sources.

Not if there was a sea near the split zone with life in it, that hyper evolved and filled the new larger body of water!

sandy_mcd
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:56 pm

Postby sandy_mcd » Fri Jan 13, 2006 9:46 pm

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Lets look only at the heat generated by the motion of the crust.
Earlier I attempted to roughly calculate the kinetic energy assuming the continents moved as specified in the Russian site reference by Jbuza: http://www.cnt.ru/users/chas/tectonic.htm. I assumed an average speed based on the data given and only tried to estimate the kinetic energy. This effort completely ignored the effects of friction.
We know from Newton's first Law of Motion that "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it". This is intuitively unreasonable. We know that if we slide a book across a table it slows down and stops rather than continuing on at the initial velocity. The explanation of course is that friction is a force acting on the book; the contact between book and table slows down the book, dissipating kinetic energy as heat.
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/light_lessons/thermal/heat.html wrote: Energy from friction creates heat. For example when you rub your hands, sharpen a pencil, make a skid mark with your bike, or use the brakes on your car, friction generates heat.
Image
A thermal infrared image of a pencil after being sharpened. Notice the hot tip of the pencil.

When the continents slide across the earth, there must be some frictional resistance. This was not considered in the earlier calculation. The equations necessary to estimate this energy are fairly simple and can be found in many places, e.g., the website referenced by Jbuza earlier http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Tribology/co_of_frict.htm or for a worked example http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/U2L3c.html.
In the case of the continents (as explained also by Jbuza earlier), there is a downward force caused by gravity, simply F=mg (force, mass, g is the gravitational acceleration of 9.8m/s^2). The force needed to push an object sideways (perpendicular to gravity, overcoming the frictional resistance) is proportional to the downward force, here, F(friction) = k x F(gravity), where k is the coefficient of friction. The energy used in moving an object is just the force times the distance. So let's evaluate these equations, first considering the values of the different variables:
1) The mass of the continents used in the earlier post was 2.23x10^22 kg. I only found one reference for that, but here is another estimate at 2.6x10^22 kg http://www.nineplanets.org/earth.html, so I am a bit happier about the validity of this number.
2) The coefficient of friction is a bigger guess; perhaps we can use a range and see what the corresponding range of results is. The Russian website proposes "friction coefficient between molten basalts is about k~0.001". Examining tables of friction coefficients (referenced by Jbuza and Google: http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Tribology/co_of_frict.htm and also http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/frictioncoefficients.htm, we see values of 1.4 for dry aluminum sliding on dry aluminum, 0.62 (static) for wood on concrete, and 0.04 for teflon sliding on lubricated teflon or lubricated steel. The latter seems like it should be at the low end of friction coefficients. Additionally, http://www.geosci.usyd.edu.au/research/marinegeophysics/TRAPS_WEB/2002/Preprints/brtrt-Moresi-etal.pdf has "In their study of plate generation in a convecting mantle layer, Moresi and Solomatov[1998] found that an effective friction coefficient between 0.03-0.13 allowed for plate-like behavior and associated lithospheric subduction. As discussed in Moresi and Solomatov [1998] this value, although low relative to laboratory values, is consistent with seismic field studies, with the lack of heat flow anomalies associated with major faults, and with effective fault friction values deduced from studies of trench topography. The value is also not unphysical as it can result from the development of a fault gouge layer or through pore fluid pressure effects".
3) To calculate the energy, the distance of 2,300,000 meters from the Russian site will be used. [This is based on the separation between South America and Africa and is used as the distance traveled by all continental masses.]
So F(gravity)=m x g = 2.23x10^22 kg x 9.8 m/s/s = 2.19x10^23 N (Newtons).
Then using a range for k of 0.001 to 0.1, F(friction)= k x F(gravity) =2.19x10^20 N for k=0.001 and 2.19x10^22 N for k=0.1.
Note that the kinetic energy of an object depends on its velocity but not the distance traveled whereas the frictional energy expended depends on the distance but not (to a first approximation) the velocity.
So Energy(friction)=F(friction) x d and Energy = 2.19x10^20 N x 2,300,000 meters = 5.03x10^26 J for k=0.001 and 5.03x10^28 J for k=0.1.
From the prior post, the estimated energy to vaporize the oceans was 3.62x10^27 J.
We see the the frictional energy is a bit larger to much larger than the kinetic energy depending on the coefficient of friction. It is certainly quite possible that the energy released by continental motion in 6 hours as described could have generated enough heat to vaporize the oceans (although only a fraction (1/3 ?) of the heat energy released would have transferred to the oceans).

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm

Postby Jbuza » Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:19 am

OK I can agree that there is a tremendous amount of energy involved by the movement of the continents, and have come to realize that the friction involved more than the kinetic energy. I was a bit confused about how the energy released by friction could be more than the kinetic energy of the continents, but since the frictional force includes the energy from the kinetics, and energy from gravity, it becomes clear how this is possible.

I have been a bit (OK a lot) scatterbrained trying to comprehend your post, and make it into something meaningful to me, but I think that I have done that now. LOL

First thing I want to point out is that you did not solve for heat, but you solved for force between the moving object and stationary objects it encounters on its path. All friction is not lost as heat that is clear. As the continents slide there is some work done to both the moving continents and to the areas of the lithosphere they slide across. http://www.jpdawson.com/pelgnet/pelchap6/Chap6.html points out some of this non-heat impact of friction, pretty clearly. It is hypothesized that the ocean trenches were gouged out by mechanical work at the contact area. IT is hypothesized that mountain ranges were uplifted when the moving continents contacted each other, it is hypothesized that volcanism which would be mechanical work and heat removal was wide spread. IT is hypothesized that warping and uplift (mechanical work) happened within the continents. It is clear that the friction would have done a great deal of mechanical work

IT is simply wrong to say that the entire force of friction was all transferred to heat. Perhaps half, perhaps more, perhaps less, who knows. The point is that some fraction of the force would be heat, and that of that heat only some fraction would end up in the ocean water.

When these facts are coupled with the fact that The evaporation of one gram of water at a temperature of 50° Celsius requires ~2375 Joules of heat energy, and 9.07 X 10^17 grams of water are evaporated per day from the oceans, we find that the oceans can shed 2.15 X 10^21 Joules of heat every day.

I think you have pointed out that there was a great amount of frictional force involved in continental drift, but it would be exceedingly difficult to clearly demonstrate what portion of that is heat, and what portion is mechanical work. IT would also be difficult to clearly demonstrate how much of the heat made it into the oceans.

I am still not convinced that this all happened in six hours, but do not think it has been clearly demonstrated that it is not possible for it to have happened in that amount of time.

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm

Postby Jbuza » Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:28 pm

Josephus, as a well trained and articulate rabbi was then commissioned to write a comprehensive "History of the Jews" for the Romans. He drew upon a myriad of distinguished contemporary and past writers from around the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern world in the course of his research. This was 2,000 years ago (and consequently then approximately 4,000 years after the Creation, as recorded in Genesis). He mentally reached back from his own time and rationally discussed recorded Jewish history from Genesis 1:1 up until the then present.

I mention Josephus here because though he often takes a defensive posture in relating Jewish history - this was not the case concerning the Great Flood. When he gets to the story of Noah, the Ark, and Mt. Ararat he draws together collaborative writings from numerous non-Jewish sources:

Josephus, Book 1, "…And after seven days he sent out a dove, to know the state of the ground; which came back to him covered with mud, and bringing an olive branch: hereby Noah learned that the earth was become clear of the flood. So after he had stayed seven more days, he sent the living creatures out of the ark; and both he and his family went out, when he also sacrificed to God, and feasted with his companions. However, the Armenians call this place, (The Place of Descent) for the ark being saved in that place; its remains are shown there by the inhabitants to this day.
"Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berosus the Chaldean. For when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: 'It is said there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs.' Hieronymus the Egyptian also, who wrote the Phoenician Antiquities, and Mnaseas, and a great many more books, makes mention of the same. Also, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, has a particular interest; where he speaks thus: 'There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote.' "

The Flood, as a historical event, required no elaborate defense - it was still collectively remembered. It had been over 2,000 years by that time, and though the memory of its details were dimming, its impact was still felt. It took until modern times for man to almost completely forget the pivotal events which had transpired early in our collective memory, to rewrite our past into a completely distorted view of ancient history.
In the time of Josephus, tangible wood and pitch evidence remained accessible, high atop Mt. Ararat. Josephus referenced other prominent writers of antiquity - thus confirming this historically remembered issue by their acknowledged consensus.

Fact: 2,000 years ago … the hull of a large, unique vessel which had bridged the gap between the old and new worlds, sparing a remnant of life - remained extant. In the Jewish version only eight persons survived; Noah and his wife, along with their three sons with each of their wives. Eight humans, and two or more of each kind of animal. God (or, "the gods") destroyed the old world, and started anew, as was (often reluctantly) documented by all leading scholars of the ancient world. "Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark…." Were their writings necessarily "uneducated and unenlightened" … just because we don't like the conclusions this leads to for our own day?





http://www.creationism.org/genesis.htm

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.

Postby BGoodForGoodSake » Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:18 pm

Jbuza wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:You're welcome.
=)

So now what we have is the following.

All the fossils were created by the flood.
So all the animals in the fossils need to have been on the ark.
But in order to do this all the animals had to be juvinile and the ark is larger than any wooden ship built in modern times.
All the lands were connected as pangaea so that the animals could return.
Somehow the animals knew where they came from.
All cats came from one type yet Jbuza doesn't beleive this. However for the purpose of explaining how the ark floated he is unsure.
The continents then split some 150 years after the flood.
It took 6 hours.
There is no mention of this in the bible.
The Kinetic Energy in this split was calculated to be 1.25x10^26 Joules of energy.
In contrast a large nuclear warhead releases about 84,000 TJ or 8.4*10^16 Joules of energy.

The energy which caused this kinetic motion had to be at least the same as that of 10,000,000,000 (thats 10 billion) large nuclear warheads.

And I suppose this would just warm the seas a few degrees?


Hey I think your getting it.

Note one smallish hurricane named Katrina that didn't seem to budge the continent as a whole is estimate to be 3*10^17 joules. Hurricanes like this have been unable to even twist south Florida off north America, let alone entirely restructure the entire map.
This figure if accurate is some nine orders of magnitude too small. In other words the Kinetic energy of the motion of the continents carried the energy of 1,000,000,000(That's one billion) Katrina's!

And that's just the kinetic energy, by the laws of physics the force which had to set off this motion had to have enough energy to get past the static friction of the continents and had to have as much energy as that which is required for the kinetic motion. We all know 100% transfer is impossible but lets be generous and say that 80% of an asteroids horizontal vector is transfered to the movement of the continents. And that the asteroid impacted the earth at a very generous 35 degree angle.

The energy transfered would be 1.25x10^26 * 100/80
That would mean the energy of the impact itself had to be at least
1.56x10^26 J
Then to get the energy in the impact itself we take this and divide it by Cos 35.
Which gives us at least 1.90x10^26 J of energy in the impact of the asteroid.
This of course leaves out the following.
Energy which is required to over come continents static friction.
Energy released from the asteroid from friction with the atmosphere.


[/quote]And Yes both Sandy-mcd and myself have demonstrated that that it would have a minimal effect on the oceans as a whole. You are right 3 degrees or vaporize 3.~ percent of the ocean.[/quote]Again the force required had to have at leaset as much energy as the kinetic energy of the movement. What is the source of this energy, and would this also have created additional heat?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm

Postby Jbuza » Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:50 pm

Bgood
This figure if accurate is some nine orders of magnitude too small. In other words the Kinetic energy of the motion of the continents carried the energy of 1,000,000,000(That's one billion) Katrina's!

Correct. This is why Katrina size storms are unable to crack one small peninsula free from its continent.
------------
Bgood
And that's just the kinetic energy, by the laws of physics the force which had to set off this motion had to have enough energy to get past the static friction of the continents and had to have as much energy as that which is required for the kinetic motion.

I agree.
------------
Bgood
What is the source of this energy, and would this also have created additional heat?

Well there is the asteroid possibility that you demonstrated. Given the numbers you list and terminal velocity we can figure how big an asteroid would have to be to create this force.

I like the idea that http://www.jpdawson.com/pelgnet/pelchap6/Chap6.html proposes for the breakup. It really seems to incorporate a great deal of observations, and explains things differently than the Pangea theory. Although the drift process is largely the same, I do wonder if it indicates less overall travel. What I mean is that it is entirely possible that some good percentage of “pangea” didn't move, which would require a lesser force. He proposes a gravitational mechanism.

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm

Postby Jbuza » Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:28 pm

Meteoroids of more than about 10 tons (9,000 kg) will retain a portion of their original speed, or cosmic velocity, all the way to the surface. A 10-tonner entering the Earth's atmosphere perpendicular to the surface will retain about 6% of its cosmic velocity on arrival at the surface. For example, if the meteoroid started at 25 miles per second (40 km/s) it would (if it survived its atmospheric passage intact) arrive at the surface still moving at 1.5 miles per second (2.4 km/s), packing (after considerable mass loss due to ablation) some 13 gigajoules of kinetic energy.

On the very large end of the scale, a meteoroid of 1000 tons (9 x 10^5 kg) would retain about 70% of its cosmic velocity, and bodies of over 100,000 tons or so will cut through the atmosphere as if it were not even there. Luckily, such events are extraordinarily rare.



http://www.amsmeteors.org/fireball/faqf.html


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest