# Questions regarding the amount of water required for a great flood as described in Genesis 7

## Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, ChristopherAndrew said:

Ooooh now the incomplete sarcasms come out. Lol.

To whom it concerns: I've been posting random questions, maybe half dozen a year, if that, on forums since 2002ish.  It is almost always the same toxic culture of bad debate skills.  Even when I'm not asking for a debate.  I've not seen anywhere that an internet forum is translated or defined as "be a cyber punkass".

I'm so sorry if you're lonely but realize not everyone is looking to engage with toxic behavior.

If anyone knows of an online source that has calculated a days (24 hours) heavy rainfall volume, across the globe, I'd like to reference that, even if you're the calculator.  I would think the calculation could employ a record rainfall figure, as in heaviest volumes ever dumped over any area and then applied globally.

Thanks!

The very first reply to you contained this information.

Further, at 20ºC and 100% RH, air contains 17g per cubic meter of water. The volume fraction, then, is 17 ml per 1000 liter, so that's 17 ppm of water by volume. That number goes down with temperature, so that's a ballpark maximum for the most water you would expect. 50 km of fully saturated 20º atmosphere above the earth will give you, at most, around 3 km of liquid water. And there is no way that you have 100% RH everywhere, and it's typically colder everywhere once you get up in the air a little bit. Absolute humidity at 0ºC is less than a third of what it is at 20ºC, and if the average RH is 50%, then you're at half a kilometer, max.

One issue that crops up in this scenario is the large amount of energy that must be released when water vapor condenses into a liquid, and then the potential energy that gets converted to heat as the rain falls and strikes the ground.

For any water coming from the ground, you need to identify the energy source for releasing it from whatever state it's in, and raising it up to the surface, and pushing the surface water up.

##### Share on other sites

Sorry but I keep rephrasing the question to possibly get it through some thick heads, so then maybe the question would be answered without so much extraneous info and opinions. Lol

These are reworded again, below.

What I'm looking for:

1. The volume of heaviest rainfall known to man for a specific time period (for example, an hour, a minute) rounded to 3 decimal points.

2. The volume needed to fill current Earth surface to 22' (or 6.706 meters) above highest known crust elevation (which seems to be Mt Everest).  And possibly using a compared average elevation such as the 2nd reply to this question below presents?  But it's sources are unknown...

3. The volume of water required from subterranean source to make up the difference the 40 days/nights of rain would not drop onto the world.

The water is available on and in the Earth, so it seems from recent discoveries. That's assumed available, but how is another day's topic.

Thanks.

##### Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ChristopherAndrew said:

What﻿ I'm looking for:

1. The volume of heaviest rainfall known to man for a specific time period (for example, an hour, a minute) rounded to 3 decimal points.

2. The volume needed to fill current Earth surface to 22' (or 6.706 meters) above ﻿highest known crust elevation (which seems to be Mt Everest).  And possibly using a compared average elevation such as the 2nd reply to this question below presents?  But it's sources are unknown...

3. The volume of water required from subterranean source to make up the difference the 40 ﻿d﻿ays/nights of rain would not drop onto the world.﻿﻿

OK. That’s good. Those have all been answered.

##### Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ChristopherAndrew said:

Sorry but I keep rephrasing the question to possibly﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿ ﻿get it through s﻿ome﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿ thic﻿k he﻿a﻿d﻿s﻿﻿,

I am not sure what your definition a thick head is, but I think I a good working definition would be someone who asks a question, receives an answer and then asks the same question again. [shrug]

##### Share on other sites

Older religious sources provide much more believable spans, about a week plus or minus.

Provided we're only talking about the localised flooding of various river valley civilizations this is fairly reasonable.

##### Share on other sites

17 hours ago, ChristopherAndrew said:

1. The volume of heaviest rainfall known to man for a specific time period (for example, an hour, a minute) rounded to 3 decimal points.

2. The volume needed to fill current Earth surface to 22' (or 6.706 meters) above highest known crust elevation (which seems to be Mt Everest).  And possibly using a compared average elevation such as the 2nd reply to this question below presents?  But it's sources are unknown...

3. The volume of water required from subterranean source to make up the difference the 40 days/nights of rain would not drop onto the world.

Question 1 was answered in the second post.

Question 2 was answered in the fourth post.  Sorry I did not put in the units of miles.  Did you want us to plug the numbers in a calculator for you?

Question 3 can be answered with the info you have been given in this thread.  Did you want us to plug the numbers in a calculator for you?

17 hours ago, ChristopherAndrew said:

The water is available on and in the Earth, so it seems from recent discoveries.

All reputable sources agree there is not nearly enough water to cover the earth - including the article you cited.

##### Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

All reputable sources agree there is not nearly enough water to cover the earth - including the article you cited

So - what conclusions could we help the OP draw from this do people think?

##### Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DrP said:

So - what conclusions could we help the OP draw from this do people think?

I think the OP should be able to see that creation science is an oxymoron.  If you have faith and an unshakable belief in the literal meaning of the bible - then good for you.  If you want to use science to prove Noah's flood, or that evolution did not occur, or that dinosaurs and people lived at the same time, then you are doomed to fail.

##### Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I think the OP should be able to see that creation science is an oxymoron.

Agreed. If creation science were actually a science then it would be investigating and providing at least provisional answers to questions such as:

• Since there is insufficient atmospheric water to provide the required volume of water where did the excess come from?
• If it was sourced from the mantle, by what mechanism was it extracted from the minerals it was part of?
• How was this mechanism able to release that water in a geologically brief time?
• By what mechanism was it able to reach the surface?
• What evidence is there for the locations from which it emerged?
• By what means was at least a portion (and a substantial one at that) evaporated?

We could easily make a list of scores of such questions. I know of not a single one that has been genuinely raised and addressed by any creationist or creation scientist.

##### Share on other sites

On 4/3/2019 at 12:23 PM, Intrigued said:

Since there is insufficient atmospheric water to provide the required volume of water where did the excess come from?

Whatever calculations science says they have of total atmospheric water are bogus; they can hardly tell if it's definitely going to rain the next day.

On 4/3/2019 at 12:23 PM, Intrigued said:

If it was sourced from the mantle, by what mechanism was it extracted from the minerals it was part of?

There had already been a constant mist going up from the earth.  (I know you're going to smack me for not giving your sacred scientific citation)

I have to say this.  I'm very impressed by your rating so far Christopher Andrew.  Your Champion said you'd be hated.

Edited by Bartholomew Jones

## Create an account

Register a new account