A Flood Of Evidence Against The Genesis Flood! Do The Math!

[Fat Man]

OK, here is a series of 3 YouTube videos, which proves, by doing some math, that it was physically impossible for the Genesis flood to have ever occurred!

Yeah! That right! The Biblical story of Noah's Ark and the Genesis flood, is only a myth! A fucking fairy tale.

Any kid in high school who is good at doing math, can prove that the story of Noah's ark is BUNK!

I didn't believe the Genesis account when I was only 9 years old, so, I knew my Sunday school teacher were all fucking liars by the town clock.

Anyway . . . . .

On to the videos.

A Flood of Evidence Against a Flood - Part 1 - (Volume)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0l0qTelEws
--------------------------------------------------
Uploaded by paulchartley on Jul 11, 2010

This is the first of three videos that aim to completely debunk the flood myth with hard science and simple mathematics

All figures are obtained from Wikipedia, which while not being the best reference source available, is generally accurate for our purposes and is readily available for anyone to check my figures if they wish

The calculations mentioned in this video are as follows:

Height of Mt Everest above sea level
8,848 m = 8.848 km

Area of the surface of the earth
510,072,000 Km2

Volume of floodwaters required to cover the earth to a depth of the height of mount Everest
8.848 x 510,072,000 = 4,513,117,056 km3

If half of this flood water came from below the ground and half of this water came from a vapour canopy in the Earth's atmosphere then...

2,256,558,528 Km3 of water was in the vapour cloud

1 km3 = 1,000,000,000 m3
1 m3 is approximately equal to 1 tonne

Therefore the vapour cloud weighed...
2,256,558,528,000,000,000 tonnes

If the earth was a tropical paradise before the flood as we are told then it would be safe to assume that the air temperature was around 30'C and air at 30'C cannot hold more than 30g/m2 of water or the water will condense (100% humidity).

1tonne = 1,000kg = 1,000,000g

30g/m2 = 0.00003kg/m2

Therefore it can be asserted that the vapour cloud had a volume of:

75,218,617,600,000,000,000,000 m3

This is equal to
75,220,000,000,000 km3

The volume of the Planet Neptune is
62,540,000,000,000 km3

Therefore the volume of the vapour cloud is greater than the volume of Neptune which has a diameter of about 49,528km. The diameter of the cloud is actually over 52,000km

Pressure at sea level was calculated as follows:

If half of the water required to flood the earth was in the Earth's atmosphere as a vapour cloud then that is a quantity equivalent to 4,424m of overall flood water.

1m3 of water is roughly equivalent to 1 tonne

Therefore on any single 1m2 of the earth surface at sea level 4,424m3 of water would be exerting a downward pressure giving a pressure of 4,424tonnes per m2 which is equivalent to 426 atmospheres

If Noah and all the animals were used to living under such high pressures they would have died as this pressure rapidly dropped over a period of 40 days to just one atmosphere.

In the second part of this series we will look in more detail at the implications of having a Neptune sized cloud of water vapour in the Earth's atmosphere would have on Noah and his animals

Please feel free to rate, comment and subscribe.

If you wish to argue any of the points made in this video I would love to hear from you

Another great video on the same subject that uses a slightly different and more acurate method of calculating the volume of flood water required:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QJ7yZ9L1po

The user's name is Bushonomics, check him out.
--------------------------------------------------

Don't let the user name, Bushonomics, throw you off. I checked out his channel and he is not a conservative, and probably not a Republican.

Anyway . . . . . on to the next video.

A Flood of Evidence Against a Flood - Part 2 - (Pressure)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4OCaHyV ... 0EA46B245E
--------------------------------------------------
Uploaded by paulchartley on Jul 17, 2010

This is the second of three videos that aim to completely debunk the flood myth with hard science and simple mathematics

All figures are obtained from Wikipedia, which while not being the best reference source available, is generally accurate for our purposes and is readily available for anyone to check my figures if they wish

In the first video we established that the quantity of water required to completely flood the earth to the depth of the summit of Mt Everest is 4,513,117,056 km3

If we consider that half was supposed to come from the fountains of the deep and the rest fell as rain then we would need to have around 2,200,000,000 km3 of water in the earth's atmosphere to fall as rain

Now the present water content of the earth's atmosphere is around 20,000 km3 which is about 0.4% of the composition of the atmosphere.

Now as that seems to be just the correct proportions for us humans here on earth we shall use that figure and then work out exactly how much more atmosphere we require to hold that much water. An atmosphere that is over twenty five thousand kilometers deep making earth larger than the planet Neptune.

2,200,000,000/20,000 = 110,000

This means that at sea level the atmospheric pressure would be 110,000 atmospheres or around and about 1,616,554 psi which is enough to liquefy most atmospheric gases.

Of course water cannot be a vapor within a liquid atmosphere so even more atmosphere would be required adding more to the pressure at sea level.

As a result of this Noah, and he can presume Adam and Eve too, would have needed to be able to survive in a liquid atmosphere at immense pressures many many many times greater than those found at the bottom of the deepest ocean trench and all of this pressure would have been lifted once the cloud of vapor condensed and fell as rain in the flood over forty days and nights.

During this time the pressure at sea level would have been falling at 40,000 psi per day

The miracle is that Noah and his animals didn't explode due to the drop in pressure or asphyxiate due to the sudden scarcity of the atmosphere that they had been used to breathing which had boiled off into a gas by the time the rain stopped falling.

In the third and final part of this series we look at the energies involved when this Neptune sized cloud condensed into rain and flooded the earth. Be sure to check it out

Please feel free to rate, comment and subscribe.

If you wish to argue any of the points made in this video I would love to hear from you
--------------------------------------------------

And now, on to the third video. Yeah! It just gets even worse!

A Flood of Evidence Against a Flood - Part 3 - (Energy)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXe8GYpn ... 0EA46B245E
--------------------------------------------------
Uploaded by paulchartley on Jul 31, 2010

This is the third and final of episode of a three video series that aims to completely debunk the flood myth with hard science and simple mathematics

In the previous two videos we looked at how much water would be needed to flood the earth to a depth that would cover the summit of Mount Everest. We determined that this volume was over three times the present volume of the earths oceans

We halved this massive volume between the water that according to scripture came from beneath the earth and the water that came from above from what some creationists call a vapour cloud and got some truly awesome results determining that the vapour cloud would be larger than the planet Neptune and would need a similarly awesome sized atmosphere for it to be a vapour in which due to its size would exert a pressure so massive that at sea level the atmosphere would be liquefied under its own mass and so Noah and Adam before him and the god that made Adam in his own image must have been a fish that swam and breathed liquid atmosphere

Now we have the more energetic problem of what happens when a Neptune sized cloud of water vapour collapses.

It requires energy to keep water in a vapour state and water condensing from a vapour to a liquid will give off energy. This energy is equivalent to the amount of energy required to vaporise that much water in the first place.

Luckily we know exactly how much energy is required to vaporise water, its called the heat of vaporisation and for water it is 2.27 MJ/kg

Now in our vapour cloud we 2,256,558,528,000,000,000 tonnes which is the equivalent of 2,256,558,528,000,000,000,000 kilograms of water which is about one and a half times to total volume of all the water on earth today.

We simply multiply the this figure in kilograms by 2,270,000 which is the number of joules in two point two seven mega joules and the figure we get is in the region of five octillion Joules.

I am not going to be any more accurate than five octillion because I don't really need to. That is such a bloody big number it makes its own point and I would be here all day just saying it. It looks like this
5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That's right it is a five with twenty seven zeros behind it and that amount of energy is roughly equivalent to 1,200,000,000MT of TNT and if that does not sound like a lot then consider this. The largest atomic explosion ever created by man was the Tsar Bomba and that was around 50MT in size.
1,200,000,000MT or five octillion joules is sufficient energy to power the entire united states of America at its present energy consumption for over 358,000 years.

In fact just to hammer it home how much energy that is it is about the same amount of energy that has stuck the surface of the earth from the sun over the last 1,000 years

This could have been a bit of a problem for Noah bearing in mind that all of this energy would have been liberated over a period of just 40 days. It would certainly have taken care of the problem of where did the 26,000 km of extra atmosphere go as that would most certainly have been boiled off into space. The only problem is that it would have also most probably have also boiled just about everything else off into space.

Of course as I mentioned before with the absence ninety nine point nine nine nine percent or thereabouts of the earth's atmosphere up to that point Noah probably had other things on his mind.

We are going to presume that among these was what was going to happen when all the water needed to be evaporated.

You see this five octillion joules of energy was liberated by about a third of the water that was presently sloshing around the planet and at some point all of that water was going to need to be disposed of.

Yeah I think you can see where this is going.

Noah sails around for about a year then in the space of a few days the water levels start to recede.

Now we are pretty sure that those 4,500,000,000 extra cubic kilometres of water are not hanging around on earth somewhere. I think we would notice them after all 4,500,000,000 cubic kilometres of water is equivalent to over three times the volume of water in all of the earth's oceans so I am going to consider that the water evaporated and was boiled off into space.

Now this is where our 2,270,000 J/kg of water figure comes in handy again because if we multiply the number of kilograms of water we have which is around four point five sextillion we get an energy requirement of ten octillion joules or about 2,500,000,000MT of TNT, enough to power the united states of America for nearly 3/4 of a million years.

If you are a Bible literalist or a creationist and you feel like addressing any of the points in this video series then be my guest

I await your replies with anticipation and excitement.
--------------------------------------------------

WOW! It looks like any high school kid who's good at math can easily destroy the Bible using a pocket calculator!

Well, I always thought the Genesis account was a myth.

Is the story of Noah's Ark suppose to serve as some kind of moral lesson?

According to the Bible, the world had become so corrupt that God decided to destroy ALL of humanity, sparing nobody, except for Noah and his family and a bunch of animals.

But, what about all the innocent little children! Did they also deserve to die in the terrible flood?

What, kind of God would destroy the innocent along with the guilty?

Well, anyway . . . . .

It never really happened.

Such an event is physically impossible.

And the math proves it!

[BabyGirlTaylor8]

Wow!! That is really cool!!

[ChrisOH]

Hello Fat Man!

One other aspect of the flood myth I heard about on a biblical-skepticism forum some years ago was this: If the ark were made out of wood, and to the dimensions the Bible states, it couldn't have stayed afloat long enough to survive such a deluge. Wooden structures begin to collapse under their own weight after a certain size threshold. In the heyday of wooden sailing vessels a few centuries ago, some were built that approached that limit, and had to be constantly pumped to remove the water that leaked in due to the partial collapse of the wooden planks. These ships were nowhere near the size the ark was supposed to have been. So, the ark couldn't have floated on calm seas, much less survived the kind of storm Genesis describes.

Of course, as you've pointed out, there are so many other problems with the whole "ark" story that to accept it as fact would be nonsensical. So, in the words of MythBusters, I think we can safely say...."Busted!"

[Mrs. Earl]

Isnâ??t it wonderful to set up straw men and then knock them down and show how superior we are to those straw men?

Since you said that any high school student who knew math could work this out, I will use the first principle I taught my high school geometry students. The first thing I taught them was that a conclusion can only be drawn from a conditional statement if the basic assumption is true. If the assumption is false, no conclusion can be drawn. So, letâ??s examine this conditional statement.

If half of this flood water came from below the ground and half of this water came from a vapour canopy in the Earth's atmosphere then...

Letâ??s see. The basic assumption is half was above and half was below. Nowhere in the Bible is this statement made. Therefore, you are assuming something the Bible does not say and then using that assumption to prove the Bible wrong. In fact, this is a ridiculous assumption to make as anyone who lives in a hurricane-prone area can tell you. The danger of flooding does not come from the amount of rainfall but from the storm surge after the hurricane.

[Fat Man]

Isnâ??t it wonderful to set up straw men and then knock them down and show how superior we are to those straw men?

Since you said that any high school student who knew math could work this out, I will use the first principle I taught my high school geometry students. The first thing I taught them was that a conclusion can only be drawn from a conditional statement if the basic assumption is true. If the assumption is false, no conclusion can be drawn. So, letâ??s examine this conditional statement.

If half of this flood water came from below the ground and half of this water came from a vapour canopy in the Earth's atmosphere then...

Letâ??s see. The basic assumption is half was above and half was below. Nowhere in the Bible is this statement made. Therefore, you are assuming something the Bible does not say and then using that assumption to prove the Bible wrong. In fact, this is a ridiculous assumption to make as anyone who lives in a hurricane-prone area can tell you. The danger of flooding does not come from the amount of rainfall but from the storm surge after the hurricane.

OK, You're right.

The Bible does not mention the ratio of waters that came from above and from the fountains of the deep below. I was assuming half and half. The Bible doesn't say if more came from the fountains of the deep and less from the windows of heaven, or if more from the windows of heaven and less from the fountains of the deep.

So, true enough, the bible doesn't say what the ratio is.

All it says is that the flood waters came from the windows of heaven and that the fountains of the deep were broken up.

But, in either case, there is still not enough water on the earth, or in the earth, to completely flood the earth up to the highest mountains, like Everest which is 29,000 feet above sea level. Not even if the polar caps, all the snow caps on all the mountains, and all the glaciers were to melt, and we even tossed in every last ice cube from our fridges, there would still not be enough water to flood the earth to the highest mountains. No, if all the ice on earth were to melt, the sea levels would rise about 300 feet or so, certainly not enough to flood the entire earth, although the coastal regions would certainly have something to gripe about. New York, the Big Apple would be apple sauce! Sea levels have been at their lowest during ice ages, and at their highest during those times when there were no polar ice caps, like, 60 million years ago when the earth had mostly tropical climate.

So, where did that water come from, and where did it go after the flood?

The fact remains, that plate tectonics can not float on water, so there could not have been a layer of water between the earth's mantel and the crust. That alone is a physical impossibility. Hence, no fountains of the deep.

Kent Hovind (who is currently serving 10 years in prison for tax evasion and fraud) he contends that there was a canopy of water above the earth, or even a canopy of ice. But that is not gravitationally viable. You can't have a shell of ice on top of or above the atmosphere. It would break up, and chunks of ice would fall to the earth. At 100 miles above the earth, orbital velocity is about 17,000 miles per hour. There would be chunks of ices in an equatorial orbit, some in a polar orbit, and in various orbits at various angles, so, if there were a canopy of ice, there would be many collisions, therefore, a solid canopy of ice above the earth is not gravitationally viable. The same is true of a canopy of water. Also, at orbital speeds, with the water moving in many different orbital planes, the water would be super-heated to over a couple thousand degrees, and life would not be possible on the earth. So, neither an ice canopy or a water canopy forming a shell above the earth would ever be possible. It would have to exist as water vapor in the atmosphere, and if there were enough water vapor to flood the entire, then the earth would have a really large atmosphere much larger then Neptune.

OK. Now, there are hydro-thermal vents with hot water bubbling up from the bottom of the sea, but the water is recycled. Ocean water seeps down through the rock layers to where it gets very hot, then it rises up through the hydro-thermal vents, but it's the same water being cycled over and over again. No extra water is being added to the oceans from these hydro-thermal vents. So, those can't be the Biblical fountains of the deep that were said to have been broken up.

Also, the amount of water needed to flood the earth, if it was more than half of the flood waters in the form of water vapor in the atmosphere, then there would have been an even worse case scenario than the one I had shown above.

If all that water was in the form of vapor in the earth's atmosphere, and if it was most of the flood waters, and not just half, then the earth would have had an atmosphere more than 25,000 miles high, and the atmospheric pressure at ground level would have been even higher than what I had depicted above.

And if all that water had come down after the 40 days and 40 nights, the result would have been a rapid drop in atmospheric pressure, and Noah, and his family, and all the animals on the ark would have exploded, a real bloody mess!

As for the fountains of the deep, no matter what the ratio of waters above to waters below might have been, in either case, if there had been a layer of water between the mantel and the crust, the water being in contact with the mantel would have been super-heated, and when the fountains of the deep had broken up, the water would have been so hot, the atmospheric temperature would have risen to about a thousand degrees, hotter than the 900 degree temperature of the atmosphere of Venus, and all the life on this planet and in the oceans would have been vegetable, beef, chicken, pork, bear, ostrich, bear, camel, kangaroo, shark, wale, fish, clam, etc. etc. you name it, soup!

And no crackers!

OK, let's instead assume that most of the flood waters came from the fountains of the deep and only a small percentage came from the windows of heaven. In that case, the atmosphere would not need to be 25,000 miles high, but the same as it is now, and no radical drop in atmospheric pressure, and no exploding people or animals. But, the water layer between the mantel and crust would be still be super-heated when the fountains of the deep were broken up, and this planet would still be a boiling pot of Noah's Cream Of You Name It Soup, and still no crackers!

But the impression I get from the Bible is, first, the windows of heaven were opened and then, the fountains of the deep were broken up, so it mentions the rains first, and then, the fountains of the deep.

Also, when God told Noah that he was going to flood the earth, he didn't say that he was going to break up the fountains of the deep, he just said that he was going to make it rain. It was when the flood was already happening that the Bible says, and the fountains of the deep were broken up.

First came the rains, then came the breaking up of the fountains of the deep.

So, the questions is, did more of the flood come from the rains than from the fountains of the deep?

That's the impression I get from reading the Genesis account.

You're right, the Bible doesn't give any indication either way.

But, in either scenario, this planet would still have been a boiling kettle of You Name It Soup!

And still, no crackers!

Anyway . . . . .

The question is, where did all the water go when the flood subsided?

So, I just don't believe that the flood actually occurred, that it's only a myth, and all religions have their mythologies. So, why should the Bible be any different?

Even when I was a kid only 9 years old, I could not believe in the Genesis flood.

Anyway, I hope I cleared up some confusion.

[Mrs. Earl]

Iâ??m sorry if this is a long post, but I would like to respond to both ChrisOHâ??s comment about the ark and Fat Manâ??s comments in his last post.

In the heyday of wooden sailing vessels a few centuries ago, some were built that approached that limit, and had to be constantly pumped to remove the water that leaked in due to the partial collapse of the wooden planks. These ships were nowhere near the size the ark was supposed to have been. So, the ark couldn't have floated on calm seas, much less survived the kind of storm Genesis describes.

Of course, as you've pointed out, there are so many other problems with the whole "ark" story that to accept it as fact would be nonsensical. So, in the words of MythBusters, I think we can safely say...."Busted!"

Actually, the Mythbuster analogy only works if you can show that the large ship is comparable to the ark. Until you know both the kind of wood that was used to build the ark and the kind of sealant that was used inside of and outside of the ark, you cannot make a comparison. The kind of wood and the sealant are both very important in determining whether or not a wooden vessel will leak. Since no one knows what gopher wood is, and since no one knows what kind of sealant was used, there can be no true test case of a comparable vessel. So there has been no mythbusting here.

the impression I get from the Bible is, first, the windows of heaven were opened and then, the fountains of the deep were broken up, so it mentions the rains first, and then, the fountains of the deep.

Also, when God told Noah that he was going to flood the earth, he didn't say that he was going to break up the fountains of the deep, he just said that he was going to make it rain. It was when the flood was already happening that the Bible says, and the fountains of the deep were broken up.

First came the rains, then came the breaking up of the fountains of the deep.

So, the questions is, did more of the flood come from the rains than from the fountains of the deep?

There is no compelling reason to believe that, since rain is mentioned before the fountains of the deep, that rain played as large a part in the flooding as the breaking up of the fountains of the deep. If you listen to reports of hurricanes, they will usually give you the amount of rainfall followed by the amount of storm surge. But that does not mean that rain played as important of a part in the flooding as the storm surge. For example, when Hurricane Ike devastated Galveston, the rainfall was 15 inches while the storm surge was 13 to 15 feet. As for why God only mentioned the rain to Noah, the greatest probability is that it was because the rain is what Noah and his family would hear. When our family weathered a hurricane, all we heard was the wind and the rain, which was scary enough, but that didnâ??t change the fact that the danger of flooding came from the storm surge.

As for Fat Manâ??s second and more important point: Where did all the water come from and where did it go? Since the Bible doesnâ??t say I donâ??t know, but I can give you one possible explanation that I read of where the water went. This individual suggested that before the flood, the mountains were not as tall nor were the ocean valleys as deep as they were after the flood. So, when the Bible speaks of â??the waters receding from the land,â? this would include them receding from mountains that were being formed and they were receding into ocean valleys that were being created as the mountains were formed. Under this hypothesis, Mt. Everest would be one of the newly-formed mountains. I have read that there are marine fossils to be found on top of Mt. Everest. I have never checked the validity of this assertion, but if it is true, it would tend to lend credence to the idea that the land on Mt. Everest was once underwater and got pushed up out of the water. As for the notion that the fountains of the deep would need to be so deep that the water would be boiling, youâ??ve given no evidence that this would be necessary. There is plenty of underground water that is not boiling today and I see no necessity of assuming there couldnâ??t have been even more back then.

I responded to this thread because you mocked my beliefs by making unfounded assumptions and then forming ridiculous conclusions based on those unfounded assumptions. You then invited anyone to try and come and disprove what you claimed. I do not really believe we will ever agree on this topic because we both hold to two very different belief systems which are based on very different but equally unprovable basic assumptions. Your belief system is called evolution and is based upon such unprovable assumptions as uniformitarianism and the belief that, given enough time, enough good mutations will occur to transform one species into another. My belief system is based upon the assumption that God is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Neither your assumptions nor mine can be proven and if this were a field of mathematics we would call them â??postulatesâ? or â??axiomsâ? because we believe our assumptions are so obviously true they donâ??t need to be proved. I will agree that, based upon your assumptions, your belief system is logical, but your basic assumptions require more faith than I possess.