scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

[discussing the biblical flood story]

> Not to mention that a flood that covers the entire surface of the earth
> is physically impossible.....

That's just proof that the flood had to have come from
a divine source.

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 2:22:41 PM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
> [discussing the biblical flood story]
>
> > Not to mention that a flood that covers the entire surface of the earth
> > is physically impossible.....
>
> That's just proof that the flood had to have come from
> a divine source.
<
If the flood covered the entire world
a) where did all the water go ??
b) why did the Egyptians not write about it-- after all they wrote about
mundane things that people wore to their parties, certainly a world
wide flood would have be noticed..............

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 8:31:05 PM UTC+1, MitchAlsup wrote:

> If the flood covered the entire world
> a) where did all the water go ??
> b) why did the Egyptians not write about it-- after all they wrote about
> mundane things that people wore to their parties, certainly a world
> wide flood would have be noticed..............

ahh but you see, the world was flat back then. so god
pulled out the plug and it all drained err umm...

l.

luke.l...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 8:31:05 PM UTC+1, MitchAlsup wrote:
>
>> If the flood covered the entire world
>> a) where did all the water go ??
>> b) why did the Egyptians not write about it-- after all they wrote about
>> mundane things that people wore to their parties, certainly a world
>> wide flood would have be noticed..............
>
> ahh but you see, the world was flat back then. so god
> pulled out the plug and it all drained err umm...
>
> l.

.... down to the turtles.

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>[discussing the biblical flood story]
>
>> Not to mention that a flood that covers the entire surface of the earth
>> is physically impossible.....
>
>That's just proof that the flood had to have come from
>a divine source.

Nonsense. It's proof of nothing, simply a physical fact.

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 8:05:39 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Tim Rentsch <tr.1...@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> >sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> >[discussing the biblical flood story]

> >> Not to mention that a flood that covers the entire surface of the earth
> >> is physically impossible.....

> >That's just proof that the flood had to have come from
> >a divine source.

> Nonsense. It's proof of nothing, simply a physical fact.

It's not proof that the flood _actually happened_. But the
physical fact that there isn't enough water on the Earth to
supply enough rain to flood the whole Earth _is_ proof that
had such a flood happened, without vertical shifting of the
continents, then a bunch of water would have had to come
from nowhere.

So if an impossible flood had actually happened, the miraculous
addition of a vast amount of water would have been required -
followed by its miraculous removal after the flood finished.

So that _is_ proof "the flood had to have come from a divine
source". It's not as if the previous poster had been trying to
defend that position seriously - instead, he was just pointing out
that

a) if one takes the Bible literally, and
b) one believes in an omnipotent God Who can perform
miracles,

then little things like it being physically impossible for the Flood
to have happened with all the water there is aren't really going to
shake such beliefs.

So he was on your side, viewing such beliefs as irrational.

John Savard

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 8:05:39 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > Tim Rentsch <tr.1...@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> > >sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
> > >[discussing the biblical flood story]
>
> > >> Not to mention that a flood that covers the entire surface of the earth
> > >> is physically impossible.....
>
> > >That's just proof that the flood had to have come from
> > >a divine source.
>
> > Nonsense. It's proof of nothing, simply a physical fact.
> It's not proof that the flood _actually happened_. But the
> physical fact that there isn't enough water on the Earth to
> supply enough rain to flood the whole Earth _is_ proof that
> had such a flood happened, without vertical shifting of the
> continents, then a bunch of water would have had to come
> from nowhere.
>
> So if an impossible flood had actually happened, the miraculous
> addition of a vast amount of water would have been required -
> followed by its miraculous removal after the flood finished.
<
No, it substantiates that no such flood could have transpired.
>
> So that _is_ proof "the flood had to have come from a divine
> source". It's not as if the previous poster had been trying to
> defend that position seriously - instead, he was just pointing out
> that
>
> a) if one takes the Bible literally, and
> b) one believes in an omnipotent God Who can perform
> miracles,
>
> then little things like it being physically impossible for the Flood
> to have happened with all the water there is aren't really going to
> shake such beliefs.
<
So, it is counter intuitive to believe.
>
> So he was on your side, viewing such beliefs as irrational.
>
> John Savard

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 2:17:32 PM UTC-4, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 8:05:39 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > > Tim Rentsch <tr.1...@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> > > >sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> >
> > > >[discussing the biblical flood story]
> >
> > > >> Not to mention that a flood that covers the entire surface of the earth
> > > >> is physically impossible.....
> >
> > > >That's just proof that the flood had to have come from
> > > >a divine source.
> >
> > > Nonsense. It's proof of nothing, simply a physical fact.
> > It's not proof that the flood _actually happened_. But the
> > physical fact that there isn't enough water on the Earth to
> > supply enough rain to flood the whole Earth _is_ proof that
> > had such a flood happened, without vertical shifting of the
> > continents, then a bunch of water would have had to come
> > from nowhere.
> >
> > So if an impossible flood had actually happened, the miraculous
> > addition of a vast amount of water would have been required -
> > followed by its miraculous removal after the flood finished.
> <
> No, it substantiates that no such flood could have transpired.
> >
> > So that _is_ proof "the flood had to have come from a divine
> > source". It's not as if the previous poster had been trying to
> > defend that position seriously - instead, he was just pointing out
> > that
> >
> > a) if one takes the Bible literally, and
> > b) one believes in an omnipotent God Who can perform
> > miracles,
> >
> > then little things like it being physically impossible for the Flood
> > to have happened with all the water there is aren't really going to
> > shake such beliefs.
> <
> So, it is counter intuitive to believe.
> >
> > So he was on your side, viewing such beliefs as irrational.
> >
> > John Savard

Who says the water causing the flood had to come from Earth? What
about a cloud of hydrogen and oxygen gas coming from space?

On 2023-07-22 10:54, robf...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 2:17:32 PM UTC-4, MitchAlsup wrote:
>> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 8:05:39 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.1...@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>
>>>>> [discussing the biblical flood story]
>>>
>>>>>> Not to mention that a flood that covers the entire surface of the earth
>>>>>> is physically impossible.....
>>>
>>>>> That's just proof that the flood had to have come from
>>>>> a divine source.
>>>
>>>> Nonsense. It's proof of nothing, simply a physical fact.
>>> It's not proof that the flood _actually happened_. But the
>>> physical fact that there isn't enough water on the Earth to
>>> supply enough rain to flood the whole Earth _is_ proof that
>>> had such a flood happened, without vertical shifting of the
>>> continents, then a bunch of water would have had to come
>>> from nowhere.
>>>
>>> So if an impossible flood had actually happened, the miraculous
>>> addition of a vast amount of water would have been required -
>>> followed by its miraculous removal after the flood finished.
>> <
>> No, it substantiates that no such flood could have transpired.
>>>
>>> So that _is_ proof "the flood had to have come from a divine
>>> source". It's not as if the previous poster had been trying to
>>> defend that position seriously - instead, he was just pointing out
>>> that
>>>
>>> a) if one takes the Bible literally, and
>>> b) one believes in an omnipotent God Who can perform
>>> miracles,
>>>
>>> then little things like it being physically impossible for the Flood
>>> to have happened with all the water there is aren't really going to
>>> shake such beliefs.
>> <
>> So, it is counter intuitive to believe.
>>>
>>> So he was on your side, viewing such beliefs as irrational.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>
> Who says the water causing the flood had to come from Earth? What
> about a cloud of hydrogen and oxygen gas coming from space?

Combining all that H and O on the Earth's surface into H2O would have
generated rather a lot of heat, not a cool fall of rain.

Better assume a cloud of ready-made H2O. Those do exist in space, even
if not dense enough to deposit a significant amount of water on a planet
in a short time.

In article <ki1risF64g5U1@mid.individual.net>,
niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid (Niklas Holsti) wrote:

> On 2023-07-22 10:54, robf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Who says the water causing the flood had to come from Earth? What
> > about a cloud of hydrogen and oxygen gas coming from space?
> Combining all that H and O on the Earth's surface into H2O would
> have generated rather a lot of heat, not a cool fall of rain.
>
> Better assume a cloud of ready-made H2O. Those do exist in space,
> even if not dense enough to deposit a significant amount of water
> on a planet in a short time.

And, of course, does not answer the question of where the water went
after the claimed flood.

The really irrational part of this matter is the biblical literalists who
believe in an omnipotent deity, unconstrained by physics, and then try to
create physically plausible ways for a global flood to happen. This is
simply not necessary for their own faith, and isn't going to convince the
knowledgeable, because the literalists can't create a plausible
explanation, because there aren't any.

I wonder why they bother? Oh, yes. For convincing people who don't know
much science, and are under the impression that the "sci-fi" they see on
TV and in movies is science-based, that literalist religion is correct.
Fraud, preying on the ignorant. That's it!

John

Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> writes:
>On 2023-07-22 10:54, robf...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 2:17:32 PM UTC-4, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 8:05:39 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.1...@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> [discussing the biblical flood story]
>>>>
>>>>>>> Not to mention that a flood that covers the entire surface of the earth
>>>>>>> is physically impossible.....
>>>>
>>>>>> That's just proof that the flood had to have come from
>>>>>> a divine source.
>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense. It's proof of nothing, simply a physical fact.
>>>> It's not proof that the flood _actually happened_. But the
>>>> physical fact that there isn't enough water on the Earth to
>>>> supply enough rain to flood the whole Earth _is_ proof that
>>>> had such a flood happened, without vertical shifting of the
>>>> continents, then a bunch of water would have had to come
>>>> from nowhere.
>>>>
>>>> So if an impossible flood had actually happened, the miraculous
>>>> addition of a vast amount of water would have been required -
>>>> followed by its miraculous removal after the flood finished.
>>> <
>>> No, it substantiates that no such flood could have transpired.
>>>>
>>>> So that _is_ proof "the flood had to have come from a divine
>>>> source". It's not as if the previous poster had been trying to
>>>> defend that position seriously - instead, he was just pointing out
>>>> that
>>>>
>>>> a) if one takes the Bible literally, and
>>>> b) one believes in an omnipotent God Who can perform
>>>> miracles,
>>>>
>>>> then little things like it being physically impossible for the Flood
>>>> to have happened with all the water there is aren't really going to
>>>> shake such beliefs.
>>> <
>>> So, it is counter intuitive to believe.
>>>>
>>>> So he was on your side, viewing such beliefs as irrational.
>>>>
>>>> John Savard
>>
>> Who says the water causing the flood had to come from Earth? What
>> about a cloud of hydrogen and oxygen gas coming from space?
>
>
>Combining all that H and O on the Earth's surface into H2O would have
>generated rather a lot of heat, not a cool fall of rain.
>
>Better assume a cloud of ready-made H2O. Those do exist in space, even
>if not dense enough to deposit a significant amount of water on a planet
>in a short time.

Even if it were possible, where did that extra water go subsequently?

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:

> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
> [discussing the biblical flood story]
>
>> Not to mention that a flood that covers the entire surface of the earth
>> is physically impossible.....
>
> That's just proof that the flood had to have come from
> a divine source.

A note to responders and down-stream traffic: my
comment was meant as satire, nothing more.

Niklas Holsti wrote:
> On 2023-07-22 10:54, robf...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Who says the water causing the flood had to come from Earth? What
>> about a cloud of hydrogen and oxygen gas coming from space?
>
>
> Combining all that H and O on the Earth's surface into H2O would have
> generated rather a lot of heat, not a cool fall of rain.
>
> Better assume a cloud of ready-made H2O. Those do exist in space, even
> if not dense enough to deposit a significant amount of water on a planet
> in a short time.
>

Balls of space water are called comets.
The potential energy released coming from space to the earths surface
is 60 MJ/kg for the earths gravitational field and 900 MJ/kg for the suns.
That potential energy will be converted to kinetic energy and then heat.
The Tunguska comet impact of 1908 was estimated to release 12 megatons
or about 50 petajoules, 50 * 10^15.

On 21/07/2023 20:17, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 8:05:39 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.1...@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>>> [discussing the biblical flood story]
>>
>>>>> Not to mention that a flood that covers the entire surface of the earth
>>>>> is physically impossible.....
>>
>>>> That's just proof that the flood had to have come from
>>>> a divine source.
>>
>>> Nonsense. It's proof of nothing, simply a physical fact.
>> It's not proof that the flood _actually happened_. But the
>> physical fact that there isn't enough water on the Earth to
>> supply enough rain to flood the whole Earth _is_ proof that
>> had such a flood happened, without vertical shifting of the
>> continents, then a bunch of water would have had to come
>> from nowhere.
>>
>> So if an impossible flood had actually happened, the miraculous
>> addition of a vast amount of water would have been required -
>> followed by its miraculous removal after the flood finished.
> <
> No, it substantiates that no such flood could have transpired.

It is entirely true to say "if there had been a flood as described in
Genesis, the water came from a divine source". It is equally true to
say "if there had been a flood as described in Genesis, the water came
from the Colorado river". It's logic - "false" implies anything you like.

It is also logical to say that "if there had been a flood as described
in Genesis, the water came from a divine source", combined with "there
is no such thing as a divine source" implies that there never was a
flood as described in Genesis.

However, I'm fairly sure Tim was just making a joke, rather than
convoluted logic.

Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> writes:
>On 2023-07-22 10:54, robf...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Who says the water causing the flood had to come from Earth? What
>> about a cloud of hydrogen and oxygen gas coming from space?
>
>
>Combining all that H and O on the Earth's surface into H2O would have
>generated rather a lot of heat, not a cool fall of rain.
>
>Better assume a cloud of ready-made H2O. Those do exist in space, even
>if not dense enough to deposit a significant amount of water on a planet
>in a short time.

There are comets, with water ice being a significant constituent of
them ("dirty snowballs"). However, dropping any piece of matter from
far away onto the earth's surface generates a lot of heat (about
63MJ/kg, compared to ~16MJ/kg (mass of the end result) from combustion
of hydrogen and oxigen; if you just drop hydrogen on the surface and
burn it, less heat is generated per kg of the resulting water (because
the hydrogen is light and weighs only 1/9th of the water, so you get
7MJ from the dropping, and 16MJ from the burning, for a total of
23MJ/kg water. Given that comets would typically come to Earth's
gravitational field with excess velocity, even more heat would be
generated.

- anton
--
'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.'
Mitch Alsup, <c17fcd89-f024-40e7-a594-88a85ac10d20o@googlegroups.com>

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 2:54:38 AM UTC-5, robf...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 2:17:32 PM UTC-4, MitchAlsup wrote:
>
> Who says the water causing the flood had to come from Earth? What
> about a cloud of hydrogen and oxygen gas coming from space?
<
So, after flooding the earth for 40 days--where did it all go ??