Fun with the Flood math.

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟28,817.00
Faith
Taoist
This is a fun look at the great flood based on the literal interpretation of the bible and our current study of the earth.
Please feel free to check and correct any math mistakes I make. :)

Math of the flood:
The bible says the flood covered every mountain. Mount Everest is the current largest mountain. Its approx 5.5 miles above sea level. I have rounded it down to 5 miles because the earth is bumpy and its better to under estimate than over estimate.
There are some theories that mountains weren’t as high as they are now, and that the flood only flooded a 17,000 foot high mountain. However there are flaws to both of these, and ill address them later.
The Radius of the Earth = 3963 miles
The Radius of the earth with 5 miles of water = 3968 Miles.
The volume of the earth = 260711882973.3396 cubic miles
The volume of the earth with water = 261699925947.5533 cubic miles.
261699925947.5533 - 260711882973.3396 = 988042974.2136999965

So the volume of the flood water = 988,042,974.2136999965 cubic miles. But lets round it to 988,042,974 Cubic Miles.
If this water was put into a sphere, it would have a radius of 618 Miles.

According to this site (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html) there is a total of 326,000,000 Cubic Miles of water on the earth. So the flood waters were 3 times the total amount of water on the entire earth.
The data says there there is approx 9,016,000 Cubic Miles of water that is currently underground or not filling a space on the surface (like an ocean). These sources of water would include Ground water, soil moisture, and ice caps and glaciers.

The bible says that some of the water came from the ground and some from rain. So if we gave the bible the benefit of the doubt and said that 10x more water resided under ground then, than it does now (10 times more water in the soil and ground water) and that the ice caps melted. We would get 27,160,000 cubic miles of water. It would still only equal 3% of the total flood waters.

Lets take a look at a square foot section of the earth. Over the course of 40 days, it would rain 25608 cubic feet(instead of 26400 cubic feet because of the 792 feet of ground water). We can use this data because we are dealing with a 25608 foot, by 1 foot by 1 foot column.

25608 ft^3 / 40 days = 640.2 cubic feet of water per day per square foot
640.2 ft^3 / 24 hours = 26.7 cubic feet of water per hour per square foot
2.6.7 ft^3 / 60 minutes = 0.4 cubic feet of water per minute per square foot. Or 3 gallons of water per minute per square foot.
That would equal 25.5 pounds of water per minute per square foot.
It doesn’t seem like too much water at first, but lets look at it outside of a square foot.
A standard american football field is 360 ft x 160ft (including end zones). 57,600 square feet.
So that would be 0.4 ft^3 * 57,600 = 23,040 cubic feet of water per minute on the football field. Or 172,351 Gallons of water. That would weigh 1,464,983.5 pounds or 732.5 tons of water per minute, will fall on that football field.

The ark is said to be 300 cubits long, by 50 cubits wide. The dictionary definition of a cubit says that its between 17” and 22” so ill use the average of those at 19.5” so the ark was approx 487.5 feet long 81.25 feet wide. Or 39,731.25 square feet. Assuming that the top of the ark was the same approx square footage. That would mean that 15,892.5 cubic feet of water would fall on the ark per minute or 118,884 Gallons per minute. Or 505 tons of water per minute falling on the ark.

After the flood, it was said that a dove brought back an olive leaf. Olive trees grow at the utmost of 5000ft. The weight and power of the flood would probably have destroyed olive trees. The few leaves that would remain would have settled down in the mud.

There are quite a few more problems with the flood, but this is getting rather long so I think ill cut it rather short.


Flood Theories:

I have heard a couple different flood theories about why the literal flood could have happened. None that I have heard so far hold any water. :)

First: Is that the flood, flooded only high hills, and yet it covered the entire earth because there were no big mountains before the flood. The flood water then somehow formed all the mountains.
There are a couple problems with this. First of all, animal fossils of different dates layer these mountains If the mountains formed from a small hill all at once, then every animal fossil should be around the same date. Second, the earthquakes and geological disasters of the formation of these mountains would be catastrophic. Much more compared to the flood. Both science and the bible lack any reference to a giant catastrophic earthquake and formation of 5.5 mile mountains. So its pretty safe to say that these mountains were there during the flood.

Second: The flood only flooded the top of a 17,000 high mountain.
This would mean that area was left on the earth. So taking the bible literally, god didn’t actually cover the entire earth. Nor would the flood secure the death of every animal and man on the planet, as there was still land left for them to run too. Most would die, but a few could remain.

Third: Animals on the ark were taken as babies, so they could fit them all on board.
There are a couple problems with this. First of all, there are quite a few animals that need their mothers to take care of them. This would increase the work load on Noah's family to way beyond the ability of 8 people. To act as a constant parent to many, many babies.
The second problem comes from the fact that many animals learn how to act when they are young. Being held in a captive environment for part of their young days would possibly hinder their ability to live in the real world.The ark was only floating for half a year, however that could be enough to effect some animal babies. However, an adult animal would still remember how to live in the real world and it wouldn’t have an effect.

Fourth: Only a small amount of animals were taken aboard, many micro evolved afterwards.
This wouldn't work. Basic Science categorizes a species as an animal that cant breed succefully with another species (there are some species that can, however it doesn't create good results). So every single species on earth, Must have been on the ark. Unless creationists want to concede that macro evolution is possible.

I think this has become long enough. :)

-Ari
 
  • Like
Reactions: us38

ikester7579

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2003
1,452
23
Florida
✟1,800.00
Faith
Non-Denom
There's only one thing I see that you did not factor in. When the fountains of the deep were broken up there had to be a contraction of the earth's crust. This is proven by the fault lines we have all around the world. So if the earth's crust contracts, how much does it contract? And from that how much less water would be needed to cover the tallest mountain?
Also I see you factored in the weight of the water, which would help with this contraction.
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟28,817.00
Faith
Taoist
An interesting thought.

Techtonic plates dont expand and contract as much as they move around. This is actually how many moutains form. Two techtonic plates move towards each other, they colide and push each other upward creating a _/\_ mountain. One can also go under the other and push the other one upwards. This is why its common to see mountain ranges formed along plate boundries.

The release of water probably wouldnt have effected the mountains too much, although the release of 10x the amount of ground water we currently have, would probably have cause some rather large earthquakes.
The mountains would have basically stayed the way we see them since the fountains from the deep broke open. Since the fountains of the deep broke open before the flood (If we were to assume that the water followed the order of the bible), then I think the flood would still have needed to flood above the 5.5 mile high mount everest.

Today at 10:49 PM ikester7579 said this in Post #3 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=691585#post691585)

There's only one thing I see that you did not factor in. When the fountains of the deep were broken up there had to be a contraction of the earth's crust. This is proven by the fault lines we have all around the world. So if the earth's crust contracts, how much does it contract? And from that how much less water would be needed to cover the tallest mountain?
Also I see you factored in the weight of the water, which would help with this contraction.
 
Upvote 0

ikester7579

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2003
1,452
23
Florida
✟1,800.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Today at 02:31 AM Arikay said this in Post #4

An interesting thought.

Techtonic plates dont expand and contract as much as they move around. This is actually how many moutains form. Two techtonic plates move towards each other, they colide and push each other upward creating a _/\_ mountain. One can also go under the other and push the other one upwards. This is why its common to see mountain ranges formed along plate boundries.

The release of water probably wouldnt have effected the mountains too much, although the release of 10x the amount of ground water we currently have, would probably have cause some rather large earthquakes.
The mountains would have basically stayed the way we see them since the fountains from the deep broke open. Since the fountains of the deep broke open before the flood (If we were to assume that the water followed the order of the bible), then I think the flood would still have needed to flood above the 5.5 mile high mount everest.

You have to remember that there was no more water underneath the earth's crust supporting it like we have today. And when you have no support something has to give, right? That was a tremendous amount of weight for the techtonic plates to carry without collapsing or moving inward and outward. The water returning would push them back out as we see now. Because the the earth's crust size. Some areas would have been further under water than others. Some techtonic plates even may have even slid under another. If we can get the info on the angles of these plates from all around the world. We could probably figure out from the angles which parts stayed on top and which parts went further under. Maybe say like around Mt. Everest. This would tell if the mountain sunk to the lowest point so water could cover it. And so less water was needed.

Ex:      ***//***

Here we have land(*) and the techtonic plates(//). Now from the angle it would seem that the plate on the left would slide upward and the plate on the right would slide downward upon contraction of the earth's crust.
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟28,817.00
Faith
Taoist
Water doesnt support the earths crust. Hot molten (liquid) rock, or magma, does. Today there isnt much water under the ground in the first place. Currently there is approx 2,016,000 cubic miles of water underground. water cant go to far underground for two reasons. One, if it gets too hot from the hot magma, it will get expelled as steam. Two, rock doesnt float, so the higher density of rock would force water towards the surface.

Yesterday at 11:57 PM ikester7579 said this in Post #5 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=691686#post691686)

You have to remember that there was no more water underneath the earth's crust supporting it like we have today. And when you have no support something has to give, right? That was a tremendous amount of weight for the techtonic plates to carry without collapsing or moving inward and outward. The water returning would push them back out as we see now. Because the the earth's crust size. Some areas would have been further under water than others. Some techtonic plates even may have even slid under another. If we can get the info on the angles of these plates from all around the world. We could probably figure out from the angles which parts stayed on top and which parts went further under. Maybe say like around Mt. Everest. This would tell if the mountain sunk to the lowest point so water could cover it. And so less water was needed.
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟28,817.00
Faith
Taoist
***//***
Land (*) Plate boundries (//). The plates dont contract but they do move. If they were moving together, it would seem that the left plate would push itself over the right plate. There are other things that could happen though.

Ex:_____ ***//***

Here we have land(*) and the techtonic plates(//). Now from the angle it would seem that the plate on the left would slide upward and the plate on the right would slide downward upon contraction of the earth's crust.
 
Upvote 0

ikester7579

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2003
1,452
23
Florida
✟1,800.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Today at 03:07 AM Arikay said this in Post #6

Water doesnt support the earths crust. Hot molten (liquid) rock, or magma, does. Today there isnt much water under the ground in the first place. Currently there is approx 2,016,000 cubic miles of water underground. water cant go to far underground for two reasons. One, if it gets too hot from the hot magma, it will get expelled as steam. Two, rock doesnt float, so the higher density of rock would force water towards the surface.

Maybe, But there's still issues with the weight pushing downward and no water underneath.

About how many miles thick would the water under ground  be given the location of the water underground compared to the radius of the earth's crust? Then we have to figure in how thick the earth's crust is, subtract the thickness of water to estimate how far it could have contracted. Then subtract that from the current radius to get the new radius then do the math for the flood over with the new info.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ben Nevis

The Member
Nov 23, 2001
134
2
✟310.00
Fourth: Only a small amount of animals were taken aboard, many micro evolved afterwards.
This wouldn't work. Basic Science categorizes a species as an animal that cant breed succefully with another species (there are some species that can, however it doesn't create good results). So every single species on earth, Must have been on the ark. Unless creationists want to concede that macro evolution is possible.

If you'll concede that the flood could have been divine intervention. Remnants and proof of the flood removed for obvious reasons, the reason being that man does not overstep his scientific boundries before his time, and that God may not allow unbelieving scientists to be the one's to find the evidence of the existence of God.
 
Upvote 0

Ben Nevis

The Member
Nov 23, 2001
134
2
✟310.00
So every single species on earth, Must have been on the ark. Unless creationists want to concede that macro evolution is possible.

2 of every living creature was on board. So that is a given according to the bible.

"Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."

Gen 6:20
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟28,817.00
Faith
Taoist
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟28,817.00
Faith
Taoist
The difference is that the bible says god opperated a specific way. If we see that god didnt opperate this way, then a lot else could be wrong about the literal interpretation of the bible. Like adam and eve, and a 6000 year old earth, etc.

Today at 12:22 AM Ben Nevis said this in Post #9 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=691709#post691709)

What difference does it make? If the flood happened with divine intervention, then God is all powerful and can operate and create anything outside the natural law of known physics.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟28,817.00
Faith
Taoist
1) because that means god is willing to lie to us to get his way. That would be something satan would do. And I dont think god makes it a habit to act like satan.

2) Show me in the bible where god said he wanted to do this?

Today at 12:30 AM Ben Nevis said this in Post #11 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=691717#post691717)

If you'll concede that the flood could have been divine intervention. Remnants and proof of the flood removed for obvious reasons, the reason being that man does not overstep his scientific boundries before his time, and that God may not allow unbelieving scientists to be the one's to find the evidence of the existence of God.
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟28,817.00
Faith
Taoist
I was writing up some info about fish.

The bible is unclear here. It says all animals, however a fish is not a creature that moves along the ground.

That would pose a bigger problem for noah. Having on board enough water and fish tanks to keep the fish, might have sunk the ark. Especially when you get into the bigger water creatures, like dolphins or blue whales.

Today at 12:41 AM Ben Nevis said this in Post #12 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=691723#post691723)

2 of every living creature was on board. So that is a given according to the bible.

"Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."

Gen 6:20
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟28,817.00
Faith
Taoist
How is it obvious?

There are two basic types of fish. Those that live in salt water and those that live in fresh water. A salt water fish will die in fresh water. we have both, so both needed to survive.

The flood waters were probably fresh water. So they would have killed every salt water fish that lived.

Im thinking the rain was fresh water because there isnt a layer of salt covering the planet from the receeding flood waters. and because rain is currently fresh water.

also, God said he killed all, so either he killed all fish, or who didnt really kill All.

Today at 12:46 AM Ben Nevis said this in Post #13 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=691726#post691726)

And fish would have obviously survived, so that doesn't give us enough in which to concede.
 
Upvote 0

ikester7579

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2003
1,452
23
Florida
✟1,800.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Today at 03:53 AM Arikay said this in Post #17

I was writing up some info about fish.

The bible is unclear here. It says all animals, however a fish is not a creature that moves along the ground.

That would pose a bigger problem for noah. Having on board enough water and fish tanks to keep the fish, might have sunk the ark. Especially when you get into the bigger water creatures, like dolphins or blue whales.

Your very funny. :D  Fish live in water, why would they need to be on the ark? All animals that needed to survive got on ark! What living creatures that did not need the help of the ark to survive did not get on ark. If God detailed everything, The bible would have been so long you could not read it in your life time.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟28,817.00
Faith
Taoist
See the post above yours. (posting them seperatly probably ment I was typing it when you were typing your response to the other post :) )

Today at 01:01 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #19 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=691739#post691739)

Your very funny. :D  Fish live in water, why would they need to be on the ark? All animals that needed to survive got on ark! What living creatures that did not need the help of the ark to survive did not get on ark. If God detailed everything, The bible would have been so long you could not read it in your life time.
 
Upvote 0