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

[trophy33]

HI myst,

You responded:


You can't, with any truth or honesty, tell any of us what the earth was like 4,000 years ago.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Well, if you think they had telescopes and ISS, satellites and GPS and knew what the planet looks like, thats your faith, but its historically wrong...

They had no idea about continents or about natural processes. The Earth for them was the area I posted. I doubt they even knew there is Europe, until Greeks came and conquered them.

 

[JackRT]

You can't, with any truth or honesty, tell any of us what the earth was like 4,000 years ago.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Actually we can in say in general what the earth looked like in the past but not in the fine details. For example we know 7600 YBP a fresh water lake suddenly in a matter of weeks became the salt water Black Sea. The same happened with the Gulf of Arabia about 10,000 YBP. But those are relatively small details on a global scale. Going back to 50,000 YGP we would see a world with very much more ice and a lot of differences in shore line but we would still recognize it in general terms. It becomes more and more difficult the further back we go in time but we can still say a lot. Today, Saskatchewan is a landlocked province of Canada but a billion years ago it was an arm of a very salty sea.

 

[dad]

Does not matter, this requirement of yours is useless. People do not have time to build boats, if not warned by God before.

It the highest mountains are covered, what did you think was going to keep them above the water, a helicopter?

What do you imagine as the "highest mountain", exactly, regarding the context of Genesis story?

Let's use a number here for the sake of simplicity, since no one knows the actual height..say 4000 feet. So now we cover all those mountains some 20 cubits over the peaks, or whatever. No way that could happen for a small area, or the area you cited in your picture for whatever reason.

This is the "Earth" (and probably also too large for them to know it all):

The earth referred to for the flood was actually that which was under all the heavens! Gong!

 

[dad]

Exactly, that is what we are telling you... it was local, not global. It was world-wide, not planet-wide.

So cover the mountains totally in your map picture, and explain how that area only would be under water??? Did gravity take a vacation? You do realize water will seek the lowest level? Before we could fill all that area over with water, the world would have to also be filed.

Their world was quite small.

That means all the heavens were small too. Good luck with that.

Also, you do realize that 40 is a symbolic number in the Bible, right?

If the number were only symbolic you might have some point. Since it was quite real also you have no point.

 

[dad]

No, what I'm saying is the the writers were not globe Travelers. "The Whole World" was the entire world they knew of. This did not include all of the worlds mountains. This included all the mountains that they were aware of.

? So how do you cover mountains with water (and kill all animals and people on earth by so doing) without having the water obey gravity? Magic? Why did animals need to be taken aboard if the animals in the rest of the world were not involved of affected/infected by the evil of man? Are you also then suggesting that the only people four thousand and five hundred years ago (or whatever date) were those in in the area Noah was 'aware of'?

 

[trophy33]

The earth referred to for the flood was actually that which was under all the heavens! Gong!

Under all the heavens from the perspective of the writer.
Water was everywhere he could see. But because of the curvature of the planet, he could not see for example South America ;-)

Please, realize finally, that the author was not on the ISS looking down at the rotating planet

His maximal view was from some local mountain.

 

[dad]

The photo above is of Lake Louise in Banff National Park in the Canadian Rockies It is one of my favourite spots in all of Canada. It saddens me that the glacier at the far end of the Lake is now almost gone. It is a long way east from Prince Rupert and has an entirely different climate. Annual precipitation in Banff is about 18 inches compared to 100 inches in Prince Rupert. Both fall far short of 6 inches per minute required for our hypothetical Flood.

Right, as I pointed out in the post, the pic below was Prince Rupert.

I feel no sadness when I see animals and fish move further north, as I hear is happening all the way to the far north. Jesus is taking over soon, and all the animal kinds will be restored. So if polar bears go extinct I will lose no sleep. The climate on earth will change in the future to a paradise like one. So I feel no sadness when certain areas get warmer or cooler now.

I pointed out that rainfall alone in a month or forty days simply will not cover mountains, and you seem to agree.

I suggested earlier on in the thread that the windows of heaven opened, bring water from deep space. Portals that transcend time and space. They dumped a world of water. Also a lot of water came up from below the surface of the earth at the same time. That would cover the world and mountains. Not rainfall is any usual sense of the word.

 

[dad]

The existence of shells on mountains proves that the mountains were once underwater but proves nothing about how long. Organisms must be buried quickly so they will fossilize rather than decay and a flood often brings about such sudden burials.

A closer look would show that those same mountains were also pushed up, and the shells were once probably in most cases, part of a body of water they usually call a sea.
So, if you call the shells flood deposited, then somehow after the flood they had to get uplifted and pushed up.

A close reading of the Bible shows that it happened during the flood.

A closer look will show it was almost certainly post flood.

The tallest mountains that exist now are about 30,000 feet tall but we know nothing about high the mountains were before the flood.

Right, though many assume the mountains that are real high now were pushed up during or after the flood.

 

[dad]

Under all the heavens from the perspective of the writer.

Says...who?? Not the bible.

If what you say is true, then in the very first chapter of the bible the waters spoken of were just in your little area too!

Ge 1:9 -And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.


Several chapters later we see the same phrase-

Ge 6:17 -And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Water was everywhere he could see. But because of the curvature of the planet, he could not see for example South America ;-)

If you were in say, Lake Louise and all the mountains you could see were covered with water, (and you were in a boat sitting only there for months) you do realize it doesn't matter what you see, gravity would force the waters down?

Go to your bath tub. Put an upside down cup in the middle, and hold it down with one hand. Now pour a pail of water on that cup with the other hand. It may seem to be almost covered for a second, but you will notice that the water levels out, and that, if you want to submerge your cup, you need to fill the whole bathtub! Ha.

His maximal view was from some local mountain.

Not really since the mountains were covered with water.

 

[Bruce Leiter]

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

A theory that I've heard and that I consider plausible is that in Genesis 1, water was above and below the firmament, that is, the sky. When God created the world, he placed abundant water above the sky held there by a canopy. This theory says that's why people lived longer in a "hot-house" environment. Then, that water came down to flood the earth as the "windows of heaven" were opened. That would account for the huge amount of water that was needed.

 

[dad]

A theory that I've heard and that I consider plausible is that in Genesis 1, water was above and below the firmament, that is, the sky. When God created the world, he placed abundant water above the sky held there by a canopy. This theory says that's why people lived longer in a "hot-house" environment. Then, that water came down to flood the earth as the "windows of heaven" were opened. That would account for the huge amount of water that was needed.

The problem is that if one lives in a hot house it will not improve their life span. Another problem is that the stars were placed in the firmament so it is not the sky where clouds and birds are. Another problem is that all canopy theories have been shown wrong, and creation sites generally warn against them. Another problem is that a canopy could not hold enough water. Another problem is that that much water falling from a canopy would apparently created killing heat...etc.

 

[JackRT]

A theory that I've heard and that I consider plausible is that in Genesis 1, water was above and below the firmament, that is, the sky. When God created the world, he placed abundant water above the sky held there by a canopy. This theory says that's why people lived longer in a "hot-house" environment. Then, that water came down to flood the earth as the "windows of heaven" were opened. That would account for the huge amount of water that was needed.

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 (edited word). 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.

By Dr. Marty Leipzig at:

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

 

[miamited]

Actually we can in say in general what the earth looked like in the past but not in the fine details. For example we know 7600 YBP a fresh water lake suddenly in a matter of weeks became the salt water Black Sea. The same happened with the Gulf of Arabia about 10,000 YBP. But those are relatively small details on a global scale. Going back to 50,000 YGP we would see a world with very much more ice and a lot of differences in shore line but we would still recognize it in general terms. It becomes more and more difficult the further back we go in time but we can still say a lot. Today, Saskatchewan is a landlocked province of Canada but a billion years ago it was an arm of a very salty sea.

Hi jack,

Actually, no you can't.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[JackRT]

Hi jack,

Actually, no you can't.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Sure I can.

 

[miamited]

Hi dad,

You responded to a post earlier:

Let's use a number here for the sake of simplicity, since no one knows the actual height..say 4000 feet. So now we cover all those mountains some 20 cubits over the peaks, or whatever. No way that could happen for a small area, or the area you cited in your picture for whatever reason.

I just wanted to also add that evidence to my position. Even if we allow that the flood was likely a 'local area' flood, it would be impossible, based on the natural properties of water, for a couple of high spots within that local area to be flooded by several feet. Water seeks level! Unless God built some huge wall around that local area that was taller than the mountains contained within the area, water would not cap tall mountains unless there was more water around to keep it at such a level.

Just as we see quite often when a dam or levee is breached by a lot water, the water runs to lower ground and it does it quite rapidly. Even a few square miles of pretty much anyplace on the earth is going to have valleys where high water will run first before climbing up to the heights of the mountains. Even if any high ground within a limited area were only 200' higher than the surrounding area, water is going to flood all of the lowland before it climbs that 200'.

There is honestly no place on the face of the earth where peaks of land over a few hundred feet could be flooded over that water wouldn't be all over the earth in order for that to happen. This is why, during any flood event, people are encouraged to seek higher ground. Water isn't going to just climb a hill or mountain unless all the water around is also up to that height.

Sure, we have floods along rivers and coastal areas, but the actual depth of any such water is only a few feet deep and it spreads until it meets the higher ground as it gently rises from the low lying river or coastal area. I lived in Hungtington WV and in 1937, (I only saw pictures of the flood) there was a great flood where the Ohio river reached a flood stage of some 69'. However, in looking at the pictures of the flooded area, you can see that the water wasn't just dozens of feet deep along the river, but leveled out until it reached land that was higher than the 30 or 40 feet of the water over the banks of the river. Here's a picture of the spreading waters in the Louisville KY area:

The 1937 flood was an historic flood, but the water wouldn't have ever covered any of the mountains around the area. I actually lived in a house that people told me was within a couple of hundred feet of the point that the water stopped spreading because as you move away from the river bed, the land gently climbs higher. So, for water to start climbing mountains, there has to be water just as high behind it all.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Neo_Frisk]

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 (edited word). 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.

By Dr. Marty Leipzig at:

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

Your calculation is misleading, in that it neglects to consider the specific heat of water, and the heat sink of the mass of the Earth.

You indicated 1.10675 x 10^20 kg of water would fall daily. Water has a specific heat capacity of 4186 J/kg/K. 1.10675 x 10^20 kg x 4186 J/kg/K = 4.63 x 10^23 J/K. Taking the 1.73584 x 10^25 J/d, this gives a maximum temperature increase of [1.73584 x 10^25 J/d] / [4.63 x 10^23 J/K] = 37.5K/d. So a maximum temperature increase of 40C in a day.

However, there is also the mass of the Earth to consider. Presuming a ball-Earth, a commonly accepted figure of the mass of the Earth is 5.972 × 10^24 kg. Assuming it's all sand, the specific heat of sand is 830 J/kg/K. So heat capacity of the Earth is 5.972 × 10^24 kg x 830 J/kg/K = 4.96 x 10^27 J/C.

We all know that it doesn't take 24h for a bowl of hot water left outside to transfer its energy to the Earth, so taking the energy of 1.73584 x 10^25 J/d, and dividing this by the heat sink of the Earth gives [1.73584 x 10^25 J/d] / [4.96 x 10^27 J/K] = 0.004 degrees Celcius per day.

Therefore, when you take the specific heat of water into account, the maximum temperature increase of the water in a day would be 38 degrees C. However, this would not be realised, as it would take less than a day for any such temperature increase to transfer to the heat sink of the Earth, so the net effect of the flooding for one day would be a net temperature increase of 0.004 degrees Celcius. Over 40 days, less than 20% of a single degree.

Clearly nowhere near the melting point of lead, and certainly conceivable.

 

[JackRT]

Your calculation is misleading, in that it neglects to consider the specific heat of water, and the heat sink of the mass of the Earth.

You indicated 1.10675 x 10^20 kg of water would fall daily. Water has a specific heat capacity of 4186 J/kg/K. 1.10675 x 10^20 kg x 4186 J/kg/K = 4.63 x 10^23 J/K. Taking the 1.73584 x 10^25 J/d, this gives a maximum temperature increase of [1.73584 x 10^25 J/d] / [4.63 x 10^23 J/K] = 37.5K/d. So a maximum temperature increase of 40C in a day.

However, there is also the mass of the Earth to consider. Presuming a ball-Earth, a commonly accepted figure of the mass of the Earth is 5.972 × 10^24 kg. Assuming it's all sand, the specific heat of sand is 830 J/kg/K. So heat capacity of the Earth is 5.972 × 10^24 kg x 830 J/kg/K = 4.96 x 10^27 J/C.

We all know that it doesn't take 24h for a bowl of hot water left outside to transfer its energy to the Earth, so taking the energy of 1.73584 x 10^25 J/d, and dividing this by the heat sink of the Earth gives [1.73584 x 10^25 J/d] / [4.96 x 10^27 J/K] = 0.004 degrees Celcius per day.

Therefore, when you take the specific heat of water into account, the maximum temperature increase of the water in a day would be 38 degrees C. However, this would not be realised, as it would take less than a day for any such temperature increase to transfer to the heat sink of the Earth, so the net effect of the flooding for one day would be a net temperature increase of 0.004 degrees Celcius. Over 40 days, less than 20% of a single degree.

Clearly nowhere near the melting point of lead, and certainly conceivable.

Your analysis assumes that the entire planet would be a heat sink. This neglects that the interior of the earth itself is very hot. As a consequence only the mantle could act in any way as a heat sink and the mantle constitutes only a small fraction of the mass of the earth.

 

[Neo_Frisk]

Your analysis assumes that the entire planet would be a heat sink. This neglects that the interior of the earth itself is very hot. As a consequence only the mantle could act in any way as a heat sink and the mantle constitutes only a small fraction of the mass of the earth.

There are a number of assumptions in all the calculations used, including the size of the Earth. The hotter the temperatures get, the deeper and faster the mantle would take away the heat. At the end of the day, there is no mathematical justification that the Earth would get any hotter than it does during normal rainfall, which I doubt would be more than several degrees celcius, if anything at all.

There is no proof that the interior of the Earth is very hot, but again, the more calculations you come up with to try to disprove a global flood, the more detailed calculations and complete science will be able to falsify your methods intended to disprove it.

 

[miamited]

Hi neo,

Thanks for your like. Water seeking level comes into plan in at least a couple of the miracles of God upon the earth. The flood, as we are discussing here, and also the parting of the sea as the Hebrews left Egypt.

However, you posted in your response this:

There is no proof that the interior of the Earth is very hot,

That 'fact' immediately set my mind to question the basic assumption that the center of the earth, the core, is a molten hot mass. Science has long taught us that the core of the earth is a hot molten mass. It is believed that this is where the lava from volcanoes comes from. So naturally, my curiosity was piqued by your claim that there isn't any proof that the interior of the earth is particularly hot.

What say you?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[dad]

Hi dad,

You responded to a post earlier:


I just wanted to also add that evidence to my position. Even if we allow that the flood was likely a 'local area' flood, it would be impossible, based on the natural properties of water, for a couple of high spots within that local area to be flooded by several feet. Water seeks level! Unless God built some huge wall around that local area that was taller than the mountains contained within the area, water would not cap tall mountains unless there was more water around to keep it at such a level.

Just as we see quite often when a dam or levee is breached by a lot water, the water runs to lower ground and it does it quite rapidly. Even a few square miles of pretty much anyplace on the earth is going to have valleys where high water will run first before climbing up to the heights of the mountains. Even if any high ground within a limited area were only 200' higher than the surrounding area, water is going to flood all of the lowland before it climbs that 200'.

There is honestly no place on the face of the earth where peaks of land over a few hundred feet could be flooded over that water wouldn't be all over the earth in order for that to happen. This is why, during any flood event, people are encouraged to seek higher ground. Water isn't going to just climb a hill or mountain unless all the water around is also up to that height.

Sure, we have floods along rivers and coastal areas, but the actual depth of any such water is only a few feet deep and it spreads until it meets the higher ground as it gently rises from the low lying river or coastal area. I lived in Hungtington WV and in 1937, (I only saw pictures of the flood) there was a great flood where the Ohio river reached a flood stage of some 69'. However, in looking at the pictures of the flooded area, you can see that the water wasn't just dozens of feet deep along the river, but leveled out until it reached land that was higher than the 30 or 40 feet of the water over the banks of the river. Here's a picture of the spreading waters in the Louisville KY area:

The 1937 flood was an historic flood, but the water wouldn't have ever covered any of the mountains around the area. I actually lived in a house that people told me was within a couple of hundred feet of the point that the water stopped spreading because as you move away from the river bed, the land gently climbs higher. So, for water to start climbing mountains, there has to be water just as high behind it all.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Correct. And since the bible doesn't hint at some magic wall, that would be wholly made up.