Originally posted by beerbrewerI have not made up my mind. It's a plausible ancestor for modern birds. Even if I'm wrong, and the precursor was something like Sinosauropteryx it wouldn't really matter, in fact, it'd probably strengthen the case for evolution.
So why did you cite it as an example, then?
Originally posted by 7ate9He did. He said 4 - 6 %. just when you put a percent sign and a right bracket together it comes up like this 😵
you haven't answered my question on what % is water that comes out a volcanoe.
it isn't just magma that comes out a volcanoe. either you have an average figure or you don't?
Anyhoo, it's not a huge amount. Why are you so concerned about this water anyway?
Let's do some math.
The surface area of the Earth is around 5.1*10^14 square metres. In the Bible it says the waters reached a depth of 15 cubits (6.858 metres) above the mountain tops (Genesis 7:20). So that gives us the volume of an outer shell of water. Now let's think about how much water is needed inside this shell to make up for areas which aren't mountain tops. Let's assume that the mountains talked about only refers to Mount Ararat (5,165 metres). And let's assume that, on average, the surface of material (land or mean sea level) is one quarter this high (it's actually much much less that that but I'm just running ball park figures and this high estimate gives a low volume, remember 2/3rds of the world is sea).
That's an extra 5.1*10^14 * 1291.25 cubic metres.
So a conservative estimate of the amount of water required of 6.62*10^17 cubic metres of water.
So how does that compare to what we know of the water supply of the world?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004674.html
Excluding Ocean Water (as our water cover needs the oceans to remain where they are) we have 3.69*10^16 cubic metres of water at our disposal. And that's counting every bit of water closer than Mars. And yet somehow we need 20x more water.
Who would have guessed.
Originally posted by 7ate9Ah now I see where you're going with your feigned stupidity. How can they possibly be known if there is no other method for verifying them?
so ALL dating systems used are based on radioactive decay rates?
Well first they are internally consistant, dates using different radiotopes agree. That takes care of random error (They don't work at all).
As for systematic error (They are all wrong by X amount), we can also compare radio dates for various events (worldwide events) to dates obtained by icecores and a few other assorted methods.