The amount of water from each source (rain & subsurface water) needed to flood the world

[Christopher Andrew]

Hi I’m a fictional writer now by trade but I’m composing a short educational work that talks about Creation Science and how it can possibly jive in many areas with other scientific discoveries or theories apart from Christian creation science. I’m not debating the issues against each other, but looking to expose how they can and do appear to be complimentary of each other when they are examined differently than the opponents of any group commonly seem to do.

I’m posting this in two different independent forums. One is a Christian forum with creation science topics in it, and the other is a non-religious affiliated science forum. I tried to pick forums that had equal popularity and discussion traffic. I may have to post it in more if I do not get responses.

So just that you know I’m a scientific friendly person in my professional experiences and I’m not the typical Christian believer who knows very little to nothing in regards to science, history, and other world religions. I’m definitely not an atheist or creator-less type either. I know a lot about my own faith in Christianity. I’ve worked as a civil engineer, computer systems engineer, federal investigator (computer/fraud/economic crimes), and my education degrees are in civil engineering, computer systems and networks engineering, and business administration with an emphasis in investment management and economic fraud detection and prevention. Some of my hobbies are making good friendships, learning new stuff and reexamining my old knowledge, target shooting, fishing, and mentoring my children.

So let’s get to it...

In Genesis Chapter 7, it says, “11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.”

All the English translations agree that some version of “the great deep” was mentioned, and this indicates that water not only rained from the sky but came from the ground and/or from under the seas.

I’ve been searching for someone who has calculated this scenario:
Using modern historical weather data of heavy rainfall quantities, if we calculate how much water would fall if it steadily and heavily rained over 40 days (or 960 hours), over all of the Earth, how much water from “the great deep” would be necessary to completely cover every existing mountain top we currently have in our modern era? I’ve seen some online discussions of just rainfall not being enough to cover the highest existing peaks on our current landmasses, but no one made up the difference, or considered, with water from the ground (a.k.a. underground aquifers) also contributing to the flood.

I’m not asking where the water would come from that rained and/or came from the deep. I’m not considering the ultimate water sources or their storage locations. I’m assuming the amount of water was available between the atmospheric water and underground water. I’m only curious in the amount of water, from two sources--rainfall and underground, it would take on the current Earth’s surface and what amount would be needed by the sub-surface water (“fountains of the great deep”) to cover all the Earth’s surface and it’s highest peaks by about 22 feet.

Does this make sense?

If you want to also comment on how such huge amounts of water accumulating on the Earth’s surface might affect the landmasses/surface elevations, shapes of the continents, etc, and how massive erosion would sweep huge portions of the Earth’s surface around as it subsided and flowed downward again, that would be welcomed. I think it’s a given that massive amounts of water flowing downward (back into the Earth and seas) would cause massive land carving, so where is the evidence of that in archaeological findings? What has been found in the oceans that could have originated from landmasses in the Earth’s current mountain ranges? If the great Genesis flood wasn't 100% across all earthen landmasses, what might show that (the north and south poles, etc)? What if snowfall/ice fell instead in the colder climates? I’m just throwing out a couple of questions for brainstorming.

Thank you and I’ll be sure to give you credit for anything I use. It’s a not for profit paper I’m writing so I’m sorry I can’t pay you! lol

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE="Christopher Andrew, post: 73813551, member: 418443"]I’m not asking where the water would come from that rained and/or came from the deep. I’m not considering the ultimate water sources or their storage locations. I’m assuming the amount of water was available between the atmospheric water and underground water. I’m only curious in
the amount of water,
from two sources--rainfall and underground, it would take
on the current Earth’s surface
and what amount would be needed by the sub-surface water (“fountains of the great deep”) to cover all the Earth’s surface and it’s highest peaks by about 22 feet.

Does this make sense?[/QUOTE
=================================
Pause......... do you see the error in this pursuit ?

 

[Christopher Andrew]

I understand the landmasses possibly look different today than back then, but roughly the same amount of mass (earth/dirt/rock) is still on the Earth's surface, even though it's been moved around and placed into structures. And it's possible the highest peaks are not that much shorter (compared to sea level) than they were back then. So I'm starting with the currently known and seeing what can be extrapolated from that scenario.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I understand the landmasses possibly look different today than back then, but roughly the same amount of mass (earth/dirt/rock) is still on the Earth's surface, even though it's been moved around and placed into structures. And it's possible the highest peaks are not that much shorter (compared to sea level) than they were back then. So I'm starting with the currently known and seeing what can be extrapolated from that scenario.

Without seeking to pursue this further, per se, do you realize that there may have been few mountains and perhaps only much lower ones only before the flood, than after the flood ?
i.e. if the possible false premise is begun with, then, if it is false, all that follows would be wrong.

 

[JackRT]

I understand the landmasses possibly look different today than back then, but roughly the same amount of mass (earth/dirt/rock) is still on the Earth's surface, even though it's been moved around and placed into structures. And it's possible the highest peaks are not that much shorter (compared to sea level) than they were back then. So I'm starting with the currently known and seeing what can be extrapolated from that scenario.

Since the Biblical story places the flood about 4300 BC, you can rest assured that the earth now and the earth then would have looked very much the same. Some years ago I can across this analysis"

Someone has suggested that all the water needed to flood the Earth existed as liquid water surrounding the globe (i.e., a "vapour canopy"). This, of course, is staggeringly stupid. What is keeping that much water from falling to the Earth? There is a little property called gravity that would cause it to fall.

Let's look into that from a physical standpoint. To flood the Earth, we have already seen that it would require 4.252 x 10^9 km^3 of water with a mass of 4.525 x 10^21 kg. When this amount of water is floating above the Earth's surface, it stored an enormous amount of potential energy, which is converted to kinetic energy when it falls, which, in turn, is converted to heat upon impact with the Earth. The amount of heat released is immense:

Potential energy: E=M*g*H, where

M = mass of water,

g = gravitational constant and,

H = height of water above surface.

Now, going with the Genesis version of the Noachian Deluge as lasting 40 days and nights, the amount of mass falling to Earth each day is 4.525 x 10^21 kg/40 24 hr. periods. This equals 1.10675 x 10^20 kilograms daily. Using H as 16,000 meters), the energy released each day is 1.73584 x 10^25 joules. The amount of energy the Earth would have to radiate per m^2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the Earth times number of seconds in one day. That is: e = 1.735384 x 10^25/(4*3.14159* ((6386)^2*86,400)) = 391,935.0958 j/m^2/s.

Currently, the Earth radiates energy at the rate of approximately 215 joules/m2/sec and the average temperature is 280 K. Using the Stefan- Boltzman 4th power law to calculate the increase in temperature:

E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T^4 (normal)


E (normal) = 215

E (increase) = 391,935.0958

T (normal) = 280.


Turn the crank, and T (increase) equals 1800 K.

The temperature would thusly rise 1800 K, or 1,526.84 C (that's well above melting temperature of lead). It would be highly unlikely that anything short of fused quartz would survive such an onslaught. Also, the water level would have to rise at an average rate of 5.5 inches/min; and in 13 minutes would be in excess of 6 ft deep.

Finally, at 1800 K water would not exist as liquid.

It is quite clear that a Biblical Flood is and was quite impossible.

By Dr. Marty Leipzig at:

*http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/fludmath.htm

Being a retired scientist myself, I can assure you that the science and math presented here is solid. The same applies to the rest of the article.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Being a retired scientist myself, I can assure you that the science and math presented here is solid. The same applies to the rest of the article.

The quote you posted is totally in error in many ways, starting with the end result even.

 

[Christopher Andrew]

The mountains could have been fewer and lower, yes I agree. But I'm simply asking from the present knowns.

The scientific analysis from the other poster did not consider water rising from the deep, and/or how that could affect or contribute to 40 days of constant rain.

 

[JackRT]

Without seeking to pursue this further, per se, do you realize that there may have been few mountains and perhaps only much lower ones only before the flood, than after the flood ?
i.e. if the possible false premise is begun with, then, if it is false, all that follows would be wrong.

I have heard this suggestion before. Such large scale geological changes would require tectonic movements on a massive scale. In recent years we have seen a number of highly destructive earthquakes and tsunamis. These were caused by underground movements of just a few inches to perhaps a foot. The changes your scenario requires would quite literally have torn the earth apart to such an extent that the history of the last several thousand years would have been very much different.

 

[JackRT]

The mountains could have been fewer and lower, yes I agree. But imI simply asking from thw present knowns.

The scientific analysis from the other poster did not consider water rising from the deep, and/or how that could affect or contribute to 40 days of constant rain.

There is a relatively small amount of subsurface liquid water that could rise to the surface. There is also a much larger volume of subsurface water that is chemically locked into the rock and is not accessible.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

www.google.com/search?q=oceans+under+the+earth&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b

 

[Christopher Andrew]

And again, I'm not here to debate if possible but rather just the calculated amounts that would be required from each water source.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

And again, I'm not here to debate if possible but rather just the calculated amounts that would be required from each water source.

Yes and good for that: the calculations were done many times from long ago until recently, and are simple to understand (no complex math or anything required).
The starting point of course is as written: Fear (respect, honor, believing) God is the beginning of Wisdom.

All that is opposed to Him is false, so can readily be discarded with no worries. (the worry/ judgment is for those who oppose Him) .

 

[jacks]

HERE. Strangely it even uses your 22' requirement...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

footnote : red flag warning: "HERE" link is apparently to a godless site, opposed to Jesus and against God's Word.

p.s. oh, and also inaccurate, false information, and bad math(if any) besides.

 

[JackRT]

footnote : red flag warning: "HERE" link is apparently to a godless site, opposed to Jesus and against God's Word.

p.s. oh, and also inaccurate, false information, and bad math(if any) besides.

I looked at the link briefly and did not find any scientific or mathematical fault in it. Although the author finds fault with the flood narrative, I cannot tell if he is opposed to Jesus.

 

[jacks]

footnote : red flag warning: "HERE" link is apparently to a godless site, opposed to Jesus and against God's Word.

p.s. oh, and also inaccurate, false information, and bad math(if any) besides.

Yes, it is not a Christian site. However, it does answer the OP's question. Very specifically, which was the point.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes, it is not a Christian site. However, it does answer the OP's question. Very specifically, which was the point.

Yes, it gives a godless, wrong, incorrect, answer, but yes , that is an answer.

 

[Christopher Andrew]

Thank you. I'll check it out.
I forgot to mention the calculation would be best forged to the exact shape of our Earth (it's not perfectly round) and present geographic surface features. I'll see how it addresses those...

No need for getting overly excited. I don't believe Yahweh is getting angry over us getting along to answer scenario questions.

 

[Christopher Andrew]

Thanks but that article does not address my question fully.

It leaves out "the deep" water that likely was most of the water that caused the flooding.

Together with the other link above it does confirm that there was enough water in the subterranean trapped water to do the job though, and then some.

 

[JackRT]

Thanks but that article does not address my question fully.

It leaves out "the deep" water that likely was most of the water that caused the flooding.

Together with the other link above it does confirm that there was enough water in the subterranean trapped water to do the job though, and then some.

It says no such thing. That subterranean water is chemically locked into the rocks and that it is 700km below the surface. Even if it were possible to unlock it, it would come to the surface as steam and cook the world. These "what if" scenarios are just getting more and more silly when looked at objectively.