quote:

---

Last time I checked there was oceans of water under the crust of the earth. I would suggest you might look there for some of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by verlch


Last time I checked there was oceans of water under the crust of the earth. I would suggest you might look there for some of it.

http://www.biblediscoveries.com/flood1.html

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leoofno

How do you regulars manage to do this day-in and day-out?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leoofno
How do you regulars manage to do this day-in and day-out?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy

I'm not entirely comfortable with the atmosphere part of it, either. Not any more, anyway.

But wouldn't there be some loss, albeit it from the thinned-out top of it? 10 cubits above the top of Everest is a long way up. And result in a somewhat thinner atmosphere when the water receded? Not being all that familiar with the atmospheric sciences (I watch the weather prognosticator whose desk is closest to the window), I'm not sure, but it seems to me that the loss would be noticeable if not disastrous. The thunder head would have to go up the height of Everest (27,000 ft., if memory serves) plus it's 'normal' 16 km.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

quote:

---

Originally posted by leoofno
How do you regulars manage to do this day-in and day-out?

---

Try neglecting sleep, work, and girlfriend.
Though, she makes herself hard to neglect sometimes...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

quote:

---

Originally posted by leoofno
How do you regulars manage to do this day-in and day-out?

---

Try neglecting sleep, work, and girlfriend.
Though, she makes herself hard to neglect sometimes...

---

Hey, we can stop any time!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy

I'm not entirely comfortable with the atmosphere part of it, either. Not any more, anyway.

But wouldn't there be some loss, albeit it from the thinned-out top of it? 10 cubits above the top of Everest is a long way up. And result in a somewhat thinner atmosphere when the water receded? Not being all that familiar with the atmospheric sciences (I watch the weather prognosticator whose desk is closest to the window), I'm not sure, but it seems to me that the loss would be noticeable if not disastrous. The thunder head would have to go up the height of Everest (27,000 ft., if memory serves) plus it's 'normal' 16 km.

---

The atmosphere stays as thick as it is because the molecules in the air doesn't have speed enough to "break orbit". For an object to break free of Earth's gravity it has to have a speed higher than escape velosity.

In any gas, the molecules have an average speed depending on temperature. In gasses, temperature is another measure for kinetic energy, which is the molecule's speed.
If you compare hyrdogen and oxygen, a hydrogen molecule needs to have a higher speed than the oxygen to have the same kinetic energy. In the upper atmosphere, the average speed of the hydrogen is higher than the escape velosity, while oxygen is too slow. The result being that hydrogen (and helium) escapes, while oxygen stays.

The difference in gravitation (and consequently: escape velocity) is minimal at 10km altitude. In fact according to wikipedia, the escape velosity goes down a third at 9000km altitude.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy

Now add more water to the altitude of 10 cubits above the summit of Everest, then explain where that water went after the Flood. It doesn't seem to be around today....

As for fresh water, did you ever hear of 'evaporation' and 'condensation?'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy
That's interesting, Doc, and something I don't know much about.

---

quote:

---

Another question, then: Leipzig said to the effect that the gasses would 'boil off,' rather than escape. Is this concievable?

---

quote:

---

Carbon Dioxide and the Flood

By Glenn R. Morton

Copyright 1998 G.R. Morton

This may be freely distributed so long as no monetary charges and no alterations to the text are made.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/co2.htm

Not only do volcanoes produce lots of sulfuric acid, they produce more CO2. I found this:

"Using the Kilauea eruption as a model, Terrence M. Gerlach of Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque estimated that the Deccan Traps injected up to 30 trillion tons of carbon dioxide, six trillion tons of sulfur and 60 billion tons of halogens (reactive elements such as chlorine and fluorine) into the lower atmosphere over a few hundred years." ~ Vincent E. Courtillot, "A Volcanic Eruption," Scientific American, October, 1990, p. 85-92, p. 89

Now, the Deccan traps contain 8.2 x 106 cubic kilometers so the output from the Deccan traps is:

30 x 1012 tons/8.2 x 106 cubic kilometers = 3.658 megatons (Mt) / cubic kilometer of basalt.

There are huge lava flows on earth, called volcanic traps, which must have occurred during the flood year because they lie on top of supposed flood deposited sedimentary rock and beneath flood deposited sedimentary rock. So if the geology requires that they be extruded during the flood, how much sulfuric acid must come with them? Here are some of the volumes of rock extruded to the earth's surface during such episodes:

Volcanics flood basalt flows (Coffin and Eldholm).

DATE VOLUME

Ontong Java/Nauru 121-124 my 38-55 x 106 km3

Kerguelen Plateau/ Broken Ridge 114-109.5 my 15-25 x 106 km3

North Atlantic 57.5-54.5 my 6.6 x 106 km3

Deccan Traps 65-69 my 8.2 x 106 km3

Columbia River 6-17.5 my 1.74 x 105 km3

Ethiopian Traps 7.5 x 105 km3 before erosion

Siberian Traps 249-216 my 2.3 x 106 km3

Central Atlantic Magmatic Prov. (CAMP) 200 my 2 x 106 km3

(estimated from the data of Mohr and Zanettin, 1988, p. 63; Siberian Traps from Reichow et al, Science 296(2002), p. 1849 CAMP from Marzoli et al, Science 284(1999), p. 618).

Other Basalt flows Volcanics flood basalt flows (Hess, 1989)

DATE Area

Snake River Plain 16 my .5 x 105 km2

Parana Plateau Brazil 119-149my 12 x 105 km2

Karoo Basalts 166-206 my >1.4 x 105 km2

Assuming a 1 kilometer thickness for the second list of traps this adds up to approximately 98 x 106 cubic kilometers.

So at 3.6 megatons/km3 x 98 x 106 cubic kilometers of basalt = 3.5 x 1014 tons of CO2.

Given that there are 1016 kg/ton this means that during the one year flood, 3.47 x 10^17 kg of CO2 would be released. According to my CRC the mass of the atmosphere is 5.2 x 10^21 g or 5.2 x 10^18 kg. Thus the amount of CO2 released ONLY by the volcanic traps during the YEC global flood, is equal to 6.6% of the entire atmosphere.

How does this relate to the present atmosphere? Currently we are approaching 400 parts per million (ppm) CO2 in the atmosphere, yet the YEC scenario would produce an atmosphere that had AS A MINIMUM a CO2 level of 58615 parts per million. Scientists are worried about a 600 ppm CO2 world next century, the YEC post flood world would create such a hot climate that all life would be destroyed. Yet amazingly, Creationists like Austin, Baumgardner, Wise, Snelling, Vardiman, Humphreys and Oard think that the post flood world would be glacially cold. (See "Austin et al, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics" 3rd ICC 1994, p. 615 and Michael Oard, A rapid Post Flood Ice Age," CRSQ 16(1979):29-37; Oard, An Ice age Caused by the Genesis Flood, 1990 ICR).

Of course, CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas and young-earth creationists have not given the thought to this issue that they should have. Their global flood would choke Noah on sulfuric acid and then choke him again on the CO2, and with an atmosphere so clogged with CO2, Noah would burn up. Venus has an atmosphere with lots of CO2 and the temperature there is several hundred degrees C.! But somehow, YECs want us to believe that the postflood, CO2 rich atmosphere would be very cold. Is there any scientific fact that will move them to reconsider their views?

---

quote:

---

There are huge lava flows on earth, called volcanic traps, which must have occurred during the flood year because they lie on top of supposed flood deposited sedimentary rock and beneath flood deposited sedimentary rock. So if the geology requires that they be extruded during the flood, how much sulfuric acid must come with them?

---

quote:

---

Pillow lava is the rock type typically formed when lava emerges from an underwater volcanic vent or a lava flow enters the ocean. The viscous lava gains a solid crust immediately upon contact with the water, and this crust cracks and oozes additional large blobs or "pillows" as more lava emerges from the advancing flow. Since the majority of Earth's surface is covered by water, and most volcanoes are situated near or under it, pillow lava is actually very common.

---

Pillow lava

quote:

---

Originally written by Morton

Is there any scientific fact that will move them to reconsider their views?

---