The Far East (Religion)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, September 18, 2010, 22:41 (5178 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Balance,
> It is not that I can't accept the easy answer. I actually would much prefer that the easy answer be correct. However, I am the type of person that will argue both sides of an debate, until all possibilities one way or the other have been extinguished. Otherwise, we end up putting science in religions shoes and saying, "It's that way because it is," or more to the point, "It's that way because we want it to be." Part of my premise in research is to be Neutral over all. I will take the scientific approach from the perspective of both a scientist and a creationist, then do the same to religion. At the moment, I am on the swing of the pendulum that has me analyzing religion as a scientist. I have been going verse by verse through the Bible to finding what does and does not fit scientifically. But in order for me to be objective about it, I have to exhaust the possibilities. That is why I can not accept the easy answer.-Noble. And I really mean that--no sarcasm. (Not that the opinion of text characters means anything to you! )-Reread my analysis: if we go back to my statement, I started with volume and ended with mass. The mantle is ~49% of the earth's volume, and ~68% of it's mass. I meant to make an argument dealing with molar mass but honestly, abandoned it midway through when I realized how much mantle volume would need to be ejected. I fudged by asserting a 1:1 density because I was working with water, but that won't change the result dramatically. (Even if it doesn't need to be ejected, you have a bigger problem of explaining how that much water could flood to the surface, stick around for as many days it says in the bible, and then go back in without observed geological processes.) -I actually did make an error, but it wasn't that. I multiplied by a factor of 5, when this was already assumed--0.2% of water in perovskite WAS the 5x number. This worked in your favor by overstating the amount of water in the mantle to 10x instead of 5x. But we're still dealing with a finite volume, so the factor instead of being about 1% of the volume of the earth, to .002% So with ten times the amount of water and 49% of the earth's volume to work with, we still can't get the result of a flood to top Everest without nearly 1/4 of the planet's volume disappearing. -I assert that this won't make you happy, so lets work with 68% instead. -(0.2e-2*(4.062456000*10^24-4.062456000*10^24*0.27e-1))/(4.062456000*10^24) = 0.001946%
So we're down to two-hundreths of a % water composition in the mantle by mass
This makes our ratio of non-water to water 10000:1 instead of 1000:1 like before. -That should demonstrate its impossibility even further. If it wasn't possible at 1000:1, it is less possible at 10000:1. -Again, I can see this happening locally; Thermopylae is in the general vicinity and you are well aware of the volcanic fields in Africa: I could see your scenario causing 40 days of rain and flooding, but I think it is going to conflate the problem to go for the gold of a "worldwide" flood.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"