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

[dad]

Hi dad, my post was concerned with where the necessary amount of water for such a flood may have come from. Scientists have recently discovered that there is more water beneath our feet (in the ground) than there is in all of our oceans combined, up to 3x as much, in fact, so now we know.

Yes, I know. So do you think that the flood waters receded into rocks in the inner earth somehow?

The windows of heaven are where the waters came from as well as fountains of the deep.

As for how the ark stayed afloat throughout the 40 days and nights of storms and waters rising, etc., I'm not sure. My guess is, God made sure that it did

The ark was well designed. However if someone is claiming the oceans sort or washed over mountains that would mean waves bigger than mountains for the year of the flood.

 

[dad]

There was no Global Flood, only a Local "World wide" one..

I see. So did God also use nukes to kill all the people on earth since the flood was supposedly only in some small area?

 

[SinoBen]

I see. So did God also use nukes to kill all the people on earth since the flood was supposedly only in some small area?

The Australian Aboriginals were quite happy that He did not use nukes.

 

[dad]

The Australian Aboriginals were quite happy that He did not use nukes.

Actually that was rhetorical because it is clear that the world that was was destroyed by water.

 

[SinoBen]

Actually that was rhetorical because it is clear that the world that was was destroyed by water.

Nevertheless, The Australian Aboriginals were quite happy that God did not destroy them by water either.

Kangaroos, Koalas, Wombats, and others were also glad.

 

[SkyWriting]

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

Another option is the topography was flatter before the flood.
But the most likely option is that the story is re-told by somebody
on the Ark, and man had not populated farther than the flood
reached locally.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

So then the local flood story sounds the best.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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

The thought that comes to me, was the world was smaller back then.

 

[JackRT]

The inland Black Sea is a remnant of that great flood.

Actually the Black Sea flood probably is the flood spoken of in both the Bible and the Golgamesh epic.
There may be several grains of truth to the flood mythology of Noah and similar mythologies from elsewhere in the ancient Middle East. About 25 years ago it was discovered (" Noah's Flood" by Ryan and Pitman) that in antiquity the Black Sea was a freshwater lake with a water level at least 155 meters (510 feet) below its present level. It was cut off from the Mediterranean Sea by a silt plug in the Straits of Bosporus. This plug broke through about 7600 YBP due primarily to the dramatic rise in sea levels caused by the melting that ended the last ice age.. It created an immense waterfall whose sound was most likely audible for 100 or more miles. The Black Sea basin filled to its present level over a period of several weeks. It is estimated that the shore line advanced at the rate of a mile or more per day. For the people living around the lake it was a catastrophe of immense magnitude. It was likely the single most memorable flood in all of human history. The racial memory of this event probably inspired the Gilgamesh epic which in turn inspired the Noah narrative in the Bible. The evidence for this flood is scientifically solid. This prompted the National Geographic Society to finance an underwater search along the ancient shoreline for evidence of pre-flood human habitation. This search has been successful! A settlement has been found at a depth of 90 meters approximately 12 miles off the coast of Turkey. It is in a remarkable state of preservation because it is located in an area of the Black Sea where the water is completely devoid of oxygen with the effect that biological decomposition does not take place. This means that wooden artifacts such as tools, planks, housing beams etc are preserved intact. What is also quite amazing is that while there is solid scientific evidence for this local flood some 7600 YBP, there is no evidence at all for a worldwide flood just 4300 YBP. One would think that a more recent, more catastrophic event would have wiped out evidence of the earlier Black Sea event. There is also evidence for a similar event causing the flooding of the Gulf of Arabia about 10,000 YBP.

 

[lsume]

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

I would say for you to try and make sense out of evolution. As someone who is a retired mechanical engineer and a resume replete with titles and teaching at University, I can tell you that the complexity of life is still way beyond us in my opinion. It is statistically impossible to have each several species meaning distinct and unique, occur through evolution. There are no missing links that should be everywhere showing species jumps. A life form may have 100,000+ genomes and can adapt in all sorts of amazing ways. Intelligent design is the only solution and I really believe that if Charles Darwin knew what we know now about life, he would have trashed his books.

 

[miamited]

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.

Hi chris,

This would be the biggest 'fact' that would need to be known to accurately solve your problem, but...

If we do allow that the highest point of land was roughly the same as it is today, then the equation would be something like this: Mt. Everest is the highest point of land on the earth and adding 22' to its current height would get us about 29,050'. We can round that to about 5.5 miles in order to use smaller numbers. The total earth surface is about 197 million square miles. So, I believe we can simply multiply the 5.5 x the 197 million to get cubic miles. I believe that there is about 1.1 trillion gallons of water in a cubic mile.

To put it into some kind of perspective, all three of the falls of Niagara have about 65 billion gallons of water fall over its rocks each day.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[samwise gamgee]

In order to answer the question you would need to know the geography and topology of the earth before the flood. Arguments against a worldwide flood assume that the earth before the flood was basically the same as it is now. Here is one biblical statement that is often overlooked.

Psalm 104:6-9 English Standard Version (ESV)
6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
7 At your rebuke they fled;
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight.
8 The mountains rose, the valleys sank down
to the place that you appointed for them.
9 You set a boundary that they may not pass,
so that they might not again cover the earth.

The flood was only one part of a massive upheaval that completely changed the geography of the earth.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I find we tend to get drawn into explaining a miracle and the natural causes behind it. This, of course, is absurd. If we succeed, then we prove that it was not a miracle, and if we fail, then it seems as though the miracle did not happen at all. If there were a natural cause, then it would not be a miracle.

All we can do in regard to a miracle is not to prove that it could happen, but to show evidence that it did happen. I point to the various marine fossils found on some of the highest mountains around the world. I point to the stratification which, despite what they teach in school, cannot happen slowly over long periods of time but can only happen by sudden catastrophe. I point to the Grand Canyon, which was most certainly not cut by that tiny little river at the bottom, not over any length of time. I point to the fossils, themselves, which must necessarily have been buried under mud suddenly, or else they would not have been preserved intact.

I see the evidence everywhere, but it is not such that greater minds than mine cannot devise a more creative explanation. I only know that the evidence for the event supports the biblical narrative. Remember this: the Bible does not say that the global flood could have happened. In fact, by virtue of the fact that it was miraculous, it could not have happened, and, yet, it did anyway. Evidence should show that it could not happen, and evidence should show that it did happen, and that's exactly what I'm seeing.

 

[Neo_Frisk]

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 calculation is wrong as it doesn't taken into account the heat absorbed by or expended during evaporation of water. If we assume that the flood covered Mt Everest today to a height of 20', the rainfall average (with waters of the deep) would have had to rise by 2.6mm/s. A slower rate of deluge than a tidal wave or flash flood, probably, but not by much. For 40 days.

 

[Christopher Andrew]

Can everyone who is not helping the way I asked just stop commenting please? I appreciate the chit chat, like over a beer and smoke, but I'm not into online debating. I'm in Western CO if you'd like to meet up for in person discussion.

I asked for calculations or references to completed calculations of the amount of water from two sources, the rain and the subterranean flow upward, to flood the current world's surface to about 22' over the highest elevation.

Assuming the rain fell as hard as a given historical known that is recorded for any period, but for 40 straight days/nights, what would that volume be, plus the needed volume of the subterranean water to make up the difference. Thanks.

 

[gideon123]

"Nevertheless, The Australian Aboriginals were quite happy that God did not destroy them by water either.
Kangaroos, Koalas, Wombats, and others were also glad."

Very amusing. And well said. You are correct. There is no reason to believe that the flood of Noah submerged the whole world. No argument - based on Science or the Bible - can support this.

But if you look at what happened in the midwest of the USA this Spring ... there were deep floodwaters covering large areas of the land. It is still a problem right now. Whole farms and ranches are covered by 4-6 feet of water. Cows are dead, all the newborn calves have drowned. It is a disaster.

Very likely. What happened in the days of Noah was similar. Perhaps worse. Maybe their land was covered in 12-15 feet of water. That would kill all the animals, and a great many people too. I think that kind of disaster is what happened.

But it is still a local disaster ... in the Middle East. There is no basis for the claim that the whole Earth was submerged.

Go back and look at the research of Leonardo da Vinci. He already figured out that the explanation of the Bibical Flood could not possibly explain all the facts. How? Leonardo observed that fossilized shells existed in the mountains. Many shells, largw and small. This is only possible if the land was underwater for a very long time, so many generations of creatures (shellfish) reproduced there. Therefore, the process of submerging the land, and subsequent upheavals of the land surface, must have happened over very long periods of time.. Leonardo figured this out centuries ago, and we still have groups of Christians trying to create their own 'Creation Science' today. That is no science.

By ignoring the facts, Christians who advocate 'Creation Science' are doing a great disservice to God.

 

[Hawkins]

This depends on what you have to assume.

The Bible is written in Noah's account of witnessing/testimony. Noah is not a scientist. He could not witness in a world wide sense either. What he saw is how water covered the top of a mountain. Then he's floating on water for a period of time.

We can't even legitimately assume that this catastrophe is actually a flood, because we never saw a flood covering the top of a mountain. Scientifically it can be a kind of catastrophe unknown to humans. If you can't confirm the type of catastrophe it's no point to say how much water shall be used.

That said. My personal opinion is that it is similar to the separation of Red Sea. It's a kind of manipulation of gravitational force. The "flood" which is higher than the highest mountain stays in one region at a time, then goes on to another region one by one till the whole world (it's basically for the living animals in it) is destroyed. What Noah saw is just its effect in one of the many regions.

 

[Christopher Andrew]

Whether or not the flood was worldwide was not in my questions. The miracle needs of a local or worldwide flood to cover the mountain tops is either way an act of God.

Identified natural resources are sometimes still accounted for that are in unexplained and debated topics of history. In this case...water.

The water, in any scenario, seems to be accounted for in/on our planet. What I'm looking for is accurate, third party calculations and explanation of a worldwide flood scenario that I can check and then use to educate a group of minds. Thanks.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Whether or not the flood was worldwide was not in my questions. The miracle needs of a local or worldwide flood to cover the mountain tops is either way an act of God.

Identified natural resources are sometimes still accounted for that are in unexplained and debated topics of history. In this case...water.

The water, in any scenario, seems to be accounted for in/on our planet. What I'm looking for is accurate, third party calculations and explanation of a worldwide flood scenario that I can check and then use to educate a group of minds. Thanks.

First of all, remember that whoever (and there are many) rejects God's Word has already rejected God.

THen, as God's Word Says, seek, and keep seeking, ask, and keep asking, and you will find. No worries there - that is God's Promise, and always true.

 

[dad]

Nevertheless, The Australian Aboriginals were quite happy that God did not destroy them by water either.

Kangaroos, Koalas, Wombats, and others were also glad.

Great, I am happy for them. Were you trying to lead to some point, such as that you feel perhaps that the existence of those creatures somehow argues that there was no worldwide flood??