A "global flood" question, mixing water and salt l

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-02-06 02:02pm

If you have a global deluge of water, to where there was aproximately half a year of submersion, it is obvious that all waters on the planet would have gained the same level of saltiness. Now, how long would it take for the oceans (after the waters receded) to regain the saltiness and for waters that became lakes to LOSE their saltiness, .. . . and if this event occured 4,000 years ago?

Also, would we not have creatures that are indigenous to oceans (some whales, dolphin, other see life) that would still exist today in lakes, and vice versa, those creatures that are normally found in fresh water being found in the oceans. . . as they learned to adapt to that water?

Thanks.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-06 02:13pm

One of the adaptations for seawater is prodigious urination or some other form of toxic waste release (mostly applicable to fish). Since fresh water fish lack this trait, they'd quickly die in such conditions. Sea-going fish, on the other hand, might survive in freshwater lakes, even if their recycling system is unnecessarily thorough. I don't claim to know the latter, though.

A fresh water otter in the sea might experience some skin problems due to prolonged salt exposure, but I'm not too sure.

Steel · Post by **Steel** » 2006-02-06 02:16pm

If you magically create enough water to submerge the entire earth, then you have many orders of magnitude more water than exist today, so the level of salinity in the global super ocean would probably be massively less than in the normal oceans, to the point that the water would not be noticably salty

Also the lakes would not lose their salinity as far as i can see, as the salt would never evaporate out, and there is not a mechanism for anything to remove it.

I think the problem with this situation is not to do with salt, but to do with the absurdity that it could rain enough to submerge the whole world

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-02-06 03:02pm

If you're going to debate the Noachian deluge with fundamentalists, you shouldn't hand them the premise and then go from there; the key is to force them to produce evidence for the existence of incredible amounts of water; since mass is conserved, water can't just disappear.
So, your key issue is here:

Magnetic wrote:Now, how long would it take for the oceans (after the waters receded) to regain the saltiness and for waters that became lakes to LOSE their saltiness, .. . . and if this event occured 4,000 years ago?

Where did the waters go when they receded? Have them answer that, and don't be sucked into arguing about the consequences of the waters receding when you idea of the waters receding is an absurd concept. That much water wouldn't have anywhere to recede to!

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-02-06 03:03pm

Steel wrote:If you magically create enough water to submerge the entire earth, then you have many orders of magnitude more water than exist today, so the level of salinity in the global super ocean would probably be massively less than in the normal oceans, to the point that the water would not be noticably salty

Also the lakes would not lose their salinity as far as i can see, as the salt would never evaporate out, and there is not a mechanism for anything to remove it.

I think the problem with this situation is not to do with salt, but to do with the absurdity that it could rain enough to submerge the whole world

Well, yeah, agreed, but this is just to ask the question IF the global flood happened. I can see what you're saying about the lakes though. If I understand you correctly, there should be some sort of salinity in lakes today, if all the world's water mixed?

Just so I don't have to google it, what makes the oceans salt?

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2006-02-06 04:46pm

I believe that is due to salt deposits in continental rocks. Water erosion reveals the salt and dissolves it, eventually carrying the salt to the oceans. Of course then it must stay there since the 'extra' water from the fresh water systems leaves the oceans through evaporation as part of the rain cycle--and the salt is left behind. So over a long time the oceans accumulate the salt uncovered by the fresh water systems.

Where that rock salt came from in turn escapes my memory at the moment.

TheBlackCat · Post by **TheBlackCat** » 2006-02-13 04:29pm

What about the dead sea and great salt lake? Considering the flood would have happened within the last 10,000 years, I find it unlikely they could have gone from the salinity of the ocean to their present levels in such a short period of time.

Normal lakes, on the other hand, would get their salt removed. If the level of salt coming in is lower than the level of salt going out then the salt level would decrease until the level of salt in the lake equals the level of salt entering the lake. How long this would take would depend on the size of the lake, the initial amount of salt, the amount of salt in streams feeding the lake, and rate of water inflow and outflow (which should be equal).

The issue becomes lakes with no rivers flowing in or out (such as lake vostok). Their salt levels should be constant since the water stopped entering or leaving.

Ariphaos · Post by **Ariphaos** » 2006-02-14 12:51am

A civil engineering friend of mine who did some studies in water mechanics said that it takes some five thousand years for the oceans as they are to cycle through all of their water. So it would take at least that long.

Another thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned is how much heat it would take to dry this deluge.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-02-14 12:55am

How about the fact that polar ice caps exist?

Ariphaos · Post by **Ariphaos** » 2006-02-14 01:06am

Superman wrote:How about the fact that polar ice caps exist?

Where's that website that shows what would happen if the Antartic ice shelves melted?

In any case, that's only about two hundred feet. Nowhere near enough water.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-02-14 01:09am

Right, but how could they exist at all if there was a such thing as this flood?

Ariphaos · Post by **Ariphaos** » 2006-02-14 01:42am

Superman wrote:Right, but how could they exist at all if there was a such thing as this flood?

Convincing creationists about ice core data is a royal pain. They often use the ice caps as proof ( !_O ) that a global flood did occur, because so and so 'ran a computer model'. It didn't help that my opponent was the one with the Master's degree in Geology. How he got there without getting his eyes openned, we (I had many geo friends at uni) had no idea.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2006-02-14 10:16am

Xeriar wrote:
Superman wrote:Right, but how could they exist at all if there was a such thing as this flood?
Convincing creationists about ice core data is a royal pain. They often use the ice caps as proof ( !_O ) that a global flood did occur, because so and so 'ran a computer model'. It didn't help that my opponent was the one with the Master's degree in Geology. How he got there without getting his eyes openned, we (I had many geo friends at uni) had no idea.

That is truly weird. For perspective, I'm currently taking an introductory geology class, and I can already overwhelmingly smack down YECs with geology. How could someone get a master's degree in it and still maintain his wall of ignorance?

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2006-02-14 10:49am

Xeriar wrote:
Superman wrote:Right, but how could they exist at all if there was a such thing as this flood?
Convincing creationists about ice core data is a royal pain. They often use the ice caps as proof ( !_O ) that a global flood did occur, because so and so 'ran a computer model'. It didn't help that my opponent was the one with the Master's degree in Geology. How he got there without getting his eyes openned, we (I had many geo friends at uni) had no idea.

Where'd he git his degree? The Cleatus Mc Jackass School of Learnin'?

1123581321 · Post by **1123581321** » 2006-02-14 05:05pm

darthdavid wrote:
Xeriar wrote:
Superman wrote:Right, but how could they exist at all if there was a such thing as this flood?
Convincing creationists about ice core data is a royal pain. They often use the ice caps as proof ( !_O ) that a global flood did occur, because so and so 'ran a computer model'. It didn't help that my opponent was the one with the Master's degree in Geology. How he got there without getting his eyes openned, we (I had many geo friends at uni) had no idea.
Where'd he git his degree? The Cleatus Mc Jackass School of Learnin'?

Maybe he did the same thing my sister did, smile at the right time, say the right things and once you get your degree reveal yourself to be a YEC. I think that's how Dr Behe got his credentials, although he waited until he got tenure.

Ariphaos · Post by **Ariphaos** » 2006-02-15 06:33pm

darthdavid wrote:Where'd he git his degree? The Cleatus Mc Jackass School of Learnin'?

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology :-/

The 'debate' in question took place at said school. Overall, I didn't lose, but all I really did was convince a few dozen people that certain specific points had to be flawed.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-15 06:38pm

I feel Behe is someone who had some sort of "born-again" experiences; he became a fundamentalist overnight because of some sinful thing he did.

Ariphaos · Post by **Ariphaos** » 2006-02-15 06:44pm

sketerpot wrote:That is truly weird. For perspective, I'm currently taking an introductory geology class, and I can already overwhelmingly smack down YECs with geology. How could someone get a master's degree in it and still maintain his wall of ignorance?

Doh, missed this. He conceded some points of it, concluding that the Earth had to be about twenty thousand years old.

Anyway, we puzzled over this a lot. He was quite intelligent, and obviously managed to pass the requisite classes, which in SDSM&T includes a fair bit of paleo research as well. It's not like he forgot his lessons either, he knew his rocks.

I think it has to be related to some form of multiple personality disorder. One part of his brain dealt with the knowledge he'd assembled, the other with his faith, being extremely selective about applying the former. He would repeat heresay (claimed that the Chinese character for flood was the symbol for 8 and boat combined), but be extremely critical of modern scientific practice.

I had to take the debate to astronomy to get him to concede anything.

For all that, he was not inherently dishonest like many other Creationists I've met.

TheBlackCat · Post by **TheBlackCat** » 2006-02-15 06:47pm

wolveraptor wrote:I feel Behe is someone who had some sort of "born-again" experiences; he became a fundamentalist overnight because of some sinful thing he did.

My molecular bioengineering professor thinks he doesn't believe it himself and is simply one of the "crooks who make big money off it". We spent about an hour and a half of one class while he simply ranted on ID. I got some good quotes