9:10 AM readiness4: Given the limitations of this debate paradigm and platform. It is my belief that lobbying haphazard generalizations of well established scientific principles is an example of impatience. Firstly, the development of the rational evidence and conjecture of such a theory as thermodynamics occurred much later in history than the anecdotal narrative of a people's cultural and metaphysical identity. Scientifically, since the story of Noah had not been empirically established with a knowledge that was not available to the people of that demographic, at that point in history. It cannot be proven that the flood actually occurred. Hence the method of testimonials to further the principles and allegories of that historical event will always be in question. Since this written record of an event that occurred so long ago is the only evidence of that event it cannot be proven that it hadn't occurred either. In discussing the principles of thermodynamics, since I'm tired and feeling a little lazy. I will only suggest that the system for the thermodynamics of a terrestrial flood should also account for other parameters; for instance that precipitation is the product of a system of the sun's radiation potential and the cooling effects of thermodynamic entropy and the exposure of the Earth's crust to periodic nighttime cooling when the sun's radiation is curbed and minimized. Since the specific heat of water allows this substance to cool rapidly while still remaining a liquid under the cover of clouds and nighttime, water will not simply boil off. Even in gaseous form water vapor rising in the atmosphere is cooled as it approaches higher altitudes because the temperature of "outer space" i.e approaching the troposphere is in fact cold and the radiation fleeting the water vapor precipitates. If it were to boil off anywhere it would be at these extreme altitudes because the heat of the earth would have to destabilize these outer spheres first before the heat required to boil the flood away as you have suggested could even take place. Besides, I surmise that the water displacement your suggesting would not take place expediently. It should take place over the course of a much longer period of time as the immense volume of water would require thermodynamic cycles similar to that of our current precipitation cycles. One final comment. The controversy over the differing life cycles as it pertains to the evolutionary cycle v. the creation model notwithstanding. Earlier on in the evolution of the earth's development the earth's surface was converted more significantly with water as the lands developed. The earth should have been much hotter beneath the crust during these early stages. According to your viewpoint the water should have boiled away along time ago. Will you accept my opinion? Ty.
To debate this premise now, or, if this is YOUR premise and you would like to add a response, click Debate Now! at top of page!
Share this conversation
Copy and paste this link into an email or instant message:
Bookmark This Conversation
Help for SEARCH DEBATESSearch all premises.