(February 22, 2016 at 4:02 pm)FebruaryOfReason Wrote: We're drifting away from Robby's OP here.

Just like all the water drifted away!

Sorry.

And as Simon Moon has pointed out, the atmosphere would have got almost as thin as Drich's argument, what with being spread over a much wider surface

Again what makes you think the atmosphere was of the same make up as it is today? Clearly if the circumference of the earth exceeded the protection of it's magnetic fields then solar migration of moisture and atmosphere is indeed plausible. which means if our current levels after said event are as they are now. then it would stand to reason it was more dense at the time.

Quote:Combined with the lower density of the atmosphere, I wonder what the cooling effect of all that water being drawn off by solar winds would have been,

Water is not 'drawn off' sport. it evaporates rises above the denser atmosphere and rather than condense and fall back as rain, it is pull off the planet along with lighter aspects of our atmosphere.
What would the temp be at sea level? It would depend on where one was and what season it was.

Quote:why it isn't mentioned in the Bible, and how Noah survived it at 500 years old?

500 years old by what calendar? Yours?

Quote:Seriously Drich, if this were a kid's story you would throw it in the trash. Give it up man. If you aren't going to concede the lamentable bollox of this story, then what do you think is rubbish?

Pluuzze I eat guys like you up for fun. I like taking your 'precious' (science) and beat you with it first.. (It helps tenderize some of your 'tougher guys.'

(February 22, 2016 at 4:16 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:

yeah.. what chapter and verse was that one found in?

Quote: your using doubt and a sad attempt at a general dismissal to dismiss a scientific principle?

You wouldn't know a scientific principle if it bit you on the ass.

(February 22, 2016 at 4:58 pm)FebruaryOfReason Wrote:

(February 22, 2016 at 4:37 pm)Drich Wrote: your using doubt and a sad attempt at a  general dismissal to dismiss a scientific principle?

Seriously??

It disturbs me that you guys vote and try to pretend to be the 'enlightened ones.'

It's not a scientific principle. It's a hypothesis you haven't proved, or even offered anything at all to support.

What's not a scientific principle? That FACT that atmosphere and moisture can be carried off by solar winds?
If this is not a understood principle then you'd better call NASA and let them know all the really have is an 'unproven theory.' (according to you)
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sci...st31jan_1/

Quote:You might as well believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster swallowed all the excess water - why not? There are no more or less reasons to believe it was all done via His Noodly Appendage.

And at least the FSM doesn't have a legacy of arbitrary murder. (1 Chronicles 13:9-10).

And don't talk to me about sad.

Pissing your life away on a fairytale that's full of holes, just because you don't have the balls to face the reality of death - that's what's sad.

Oooooo I loooove IT when you guys are so foolishly wrapped up in your own hype you start a victory lap before you actually win the race. Don't look now but your choking on one of those appendages now old sport.

(February 22, 2016 at 5:28 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 22, 2016 at 4:58 pm)FebruaryOfReason Wrote: It's not a scientific principle. It's a hypothesis you haven't proved, or even offered anything at all to support.

What's not a scientific principle? That FACT that atmosphere and moisture can be carried off by solar winds?
If this is not a understood principle then you'd better call NASA and let them know all the really have is an 'unproven theory.' (according to you)
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sci...st31jan_1/

Subtitled, "The solar wind has slowly eroded the Martian atmosphere for billions of years -- transforming the planet into a barren desert."

Are you suggesting that the flood occurred over the course of billions of years?

("Not at all. It could be carried.....")

(February 22, 2016 at 5:28 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 22, 2016 at 4:58 pm)FebruaryOfReason Wrote: It's not a scientific principle. It's a hypothesis you haven't proved, or even offered anything at all to support.

What's not a scientific principle? That FACT that atmosphere and moisture can be carried off by solar winds?
If this is not a understood principle then you'd better call NASA and let them know all the really have is an 'unproven theory.' (according to you)
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sci...st31jan_1/

Quote:You might as well believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster swallowed all the excess water - why not? There are no more or less reasons to believe it was all done via His Noodly Appendage.

And at least the FSM doesn't have a legacy of arbitrary murder. (1 Chronicles 13:9-10).

And don't talk to me about sad.

Pissing your life away on a fairytale that's full of holes, just because you don't have the balls to face the reality of death - that's what's sad.

Oooooo I loooove IT when you guys are so foolishly wrapped up in your own hype you start a victory lap before you actually win the race. Don't look now but your choking on one of those appendages now old sport.  

You have shown no evidence that the waters of Noah's flood were carried off by solar winds.

Science is about showing evidence.

Where is the evidence for what you think?

(February 22, 2016 at 5:05 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(February 22, 2016 at 4:19 pm)Drich Wrote: What makes you think what constitutes as atmosphere several thousand years ago is what we know the atmospheric make up to be now?

Or is it your "belief" that the earth's atmosphere has always been at it's current concentrations and density?

Of course it is known, by the use of science, not ancient mythological texts, that the atmosphere has changed quite drastically over the earth's existence. 

But it has not changed that much over the last several thousand years. Not enough to account for what you are suggesting, that's for sure. 

If so, it would have been so dense before the 30K level of sea rise, that life on earth before the 30K sea level rise, would have been drastically different. As would have been the weather and the amount of sunlight reaching the surface. In other words, the earth would not have resembled anything like it actually did for thousands of years.

What makes you think it had to be so dense or dramatically different?

What is the concentration of O2 at sea level? what is the concentration of O2 @30K feet? right now today? about 21% (give or take) at both. The air mix is the same both here at at alt. what is lessened is Psi or volume. @ sea level we have 14.7 PSIG at 30K feet we have 3.62 PSIG.
http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/oxygen.htm

All we need is more volume. Not a thicker concentration/more dense air. Yes this would increase the seal level PSIG at the time, but as the earth swelled it would explain why/how the animals 'slept.' (hypoxia) That said volume does not equate to changes in plant life or animal operation. It would be no different than taking a exotic bird from some jungle in brazil at sea level to live in Denver or peru.

There is evidence for solar winds, so we accept the idea that they are plausible.

There is no evidence for a 30,000 ft increase in the height of the oceans, then all that water vanishing.

That is the difference between scientific principle and speculation.

If you accept NASA's word on scientific principle, why don't you ask them if what you think is plausible?

(February 22, 2016 at 5:40 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(February 22, 2016 at 5:28 pm)Drich Wrote: What's not a scientific principle? That FACT that atmosphere and moisture can be carried off by solar winds?
If this is not a understood principle then you'd better call NASA and let them know all the really have is an 'unproven theory.' (according to you)
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sci...st31jan_1/

Subtitled, "The solar wind has slowly eroded the Martian atmosphere for billions of years -- transforming the planet into a barren desert."

Are you suggesting that the flood occurred over the course of billions of years?

("Not at all.  It could be carried.....")

why did it take billions of years according to the source material/website (got to go beyond that particular artical)

Short answer: because that is how long it took for the martian magnetosphere to collapse.

At the time of the flood, our planet was beyond the critical mass it was designed per the core density/activity (per the first paper I posted) the additional mass put on by the water exceeded this planet's ability to retain the additional mass, and was lost.

Our magnetosphere is a constant, post flood our surface area was not. Our planetary volume (water) exceeded what this planet could protect with it's fixed magnetosphere. this volume boiled off quickly. (not temp boiled/low pressure boiled) google it.
Why? because of what my first post/paper says.

If the were a world wide flood, there would be a world wide sedimentary flood layer all at the same level. There isn't. Therefore, no world wide flood. There are many, many other impossibilitissues associated with the Genesis flood story, but the biggest unanswered question is where is the sediment layer?