Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?

Now this is where you really need to provide evidence. Exactly where is this water? How was it found? Is it a single large body of water? Is it multiple smaller bodies of water? Is it actually in the form of liquid water? Is it in the form of tiny amounts in rock pores or in hydrates? Is it available to exit where it is as a fountain? Maybe, but filling in a hole with water in it is different from the behaviour of solids in a large body of water. For a start solids tend to sink, displacing the water so I don't think your comparison is valid. You still have to account for where the water went after the flood. If it came out of the fountains of the deep under great pressure, how is it going to get back into them in the short time span available? How is it going to get back into them at all, given the pressure that will be required? Have you ever tried to put oil back into an oilfield? That's a false dichotomy. The formation of the planet as a whole has no bearing on the statement I made which attempted to get some clarification. You said Referring to that I said Nothing in what you wrote had anything to do with accretion forming the planet. We're way beyond that - in the scenario you described you were talking about how plants may have been covered and you stated the earth was alot smaller. So I'll ask you again. Are you saying the earth grew due to asteroid impacts or due to plant material being deposited or a bit of both? You didn't just say that What happened to your unshakable belief that all the seas were gathered into one place??? There is a very basic inconsistency in your arguments. You can't argue for all the seas being gathered into one place then say there were no seas! So the text doesn't require any hills, you say. I suggest you read the text a bit more closely. Note the words I've put in bold. There is an absolute requirement for land elevation. If your model only works with no land elevations, I suggest you change your model rather than making claims about the text which can only be described as wrong, unless of course you're going to argue that the definitions of hill and mountain were different when the story was written down.

If this lot comes out in one go as the fountains of the deep have you any idea how much heat would be transferred to the surface where Noah and his menagerie are waiting? In all probability they'd be broiled! Sorry, that's irrelevant nonsense. There are many ways to get water out of sand, but nothing you've proposed here allows you to cause a massive flood. Allowing the water to evaporate has the opposite effect and I've no idea how you propose to squeeze all the water out at the same time with pressure. Yes, but the mechanisms you have proposed preclude its availability to burst forth and cause a flood. Where did I say that? All I asked for was clarification from you of where the extra mass came from.How do you reconcile the following? Let's move on to land elevation. Previously you stated that there was no textual requirement for any elevation and I've provided you with the text which demonstrates that there is an absolute requirement for land elevation. I've even quoted the text from the KJV which explicitly states that land elevation existed. You're only answer to that is to say Now you admit that there had to be elevation to end up with "hills" in the translations. How do you reconcile that with your previous assertion that existence of hills is not required to satisfy the texts? For the record I didnot say they were mountains in my previous post, I provided word for word quotes from the text which called them both hills and mountains. What you are doing here is wriggling. You have made an assertion which I have demonstrated to be false and you have retreated into translational arguments. Whatever the original text said, whatever the original writer meant, whatever errors the translators made is irrelevant because the word "hill" requires some land to be higher than other land. In addition, how else are you going to account for the tops of some of the land appearing as the flood receded? The word that was used and the context in which it was used cannot be interpreted in any other way.I'd appreciate some input from geologists, physicists etc to calculate the effect of millions of cubic kilometres of superheated steam belching into the atmosphere would have on global temperatures.

Your experiment depends on factors which do not exist in your proposed pre-flood world, namely the water being confined by the bottom and sides of the 16 oz glass. There are no confining factors in your model. In addition you've already got much of the water being removed as it is covered in your model by stating that, under pressure the water would come out. Have you any idea how much material it would take to cover water in your single sea model? Have you any idea of the pressure the bottom layers would be under? That does not give any idea of your proposed mechanism for releasing the water to cause the flood, unless you're proposing that God ran around drilling muckle great holes. That doesn't address my point that the text, contrary to your assertion, absolutely requires some land to be elevated above other land. If the lowest land has to be a minimum of 1 inch there must be land which is higher than that for the word to be used, whether it be translated as hill, mountain or summit. Additionally, you earlier said that there were four rivers. How do you think they managed to flow if the river beds were all at the same level? (Hint, water in a level area doesn't flow and if your rivers didn't flow they're canals) You're more than happy to make assumptions about everything else, why are you so reluctant to make even an educated guess here? I'll make an educated guess that once you commit to any figure, even a ballpark one, your model can be tested for viability (for example how much latent heat would be released into the atmosphere) and you're reluctant for that to happen. Additionally, you think that if you keep your land elevation to an absolute minimum you'll minimise the amount of water required by the text and therefore minimise the obvious difficulties whith your model.Do you really believe when Moses wrote "hill/summit/whatever" he was intentionally describing a mound that was 2" above sea level? Do you think that when God described the flood to Moses he was talking about a 2" mound? I think that this idea can best be described, in technical terms, as crap. You do realise that 1 unit of water becomes 1600 units of steam? Even on your ridiculous 1" elevation, you're talking about an awful lot of steam. I suggest you show some calculations to support your assertion that all of this water will be cooled by the time it reaches the ocean floor. There's a big difference between oil and water. The pertinent one is that the specific heat of water is 4.186 Joule/gram C, the specific heat of crude oil is around 2.130 Joule/gram C. That means that it takes twice as much energy input to heat water by 1C compared with the same volume of oil. It also means that water has twice as much energy to release int it's surroundings as it cools. Can I also point out that is an assumption which is incorrect and easily checked. I thought you didn't make assumptions.Remember, this is your model, you are proposing it, so you have to work out how much heat you're dealing with and the effects of such heat. Saying "Well, it will cool down before it reaches the ocean floor" is only going to help your model if you work out how much heat you're dealing with in the first place and how that heat will be transferred so you need some idea of the volume of water required to cause a global flood before you even start. How about you work out how much water it would take to increase the diameter of the planet by 1"? That will give you the absolute minimum amount of water that your model needs.

He's going to need at least 1" plus 15 cubits!

Taking the smallest estimate for a cubit, the flood would require the land to be covered with 6.48 metres of water (15 cubits + 1"). Previously I calculated the volume needed to cover the earth to 4000 metres was 2046 million cubic kilometres so to cover the earth to a depth of 6.48 metres we'd need 2046 million/(4000/6.48) =3.13 million cubic kilometres of water which equates to 5303.2 million cubic kilometres of steam.So what would be the effect of 5303.2 million cubic kilometres of steam bursting through the ocean floors? How much would it have cooled down before it reached the ocean floor? How much could it heat the oceans and the atmosphere by?

According to your calculation, you'd need 12 metres of water to cover your 1" of land since you've used the Holy cubit. That's double what my calculation needs since I used the smallest cubit I could find, which came in at 17".The problem with all of this is that, yet again, you ignore the need for land higher than 1" above sea level which the text absolutely requires. It matters not a jot what word you translate your Hebrew to, the only way you are going to get Whether it's mountains, hills or small mounds, the only way the tops are going to be uncovered is if the land of the tops is higher than the rest of the land, unless you're proposing that the land was as flat as a pancake and it was the water which had a contoured surface Now I'm no physicist or engineer, but I do know that a body of water tends to have a level surface, as does any liquid with a low viscosity.Previously I said You haven't addressed this at all and in addition, your own figure almost doubles the amount of water needed, even leaving out the existence of hills. You've now got to account for the effects of 10,606.4 million cubic kilometres of steam. You've asserted that it would all have cooled by the time it reached the ocean floor, but you have shown no calculations to back this up. Bear in mind that the water in hydrothermal vents is still at temperatures up to about 400C and tends to be acidic, with a pH value as low as 2.8 approximately that of vinegar. If small hydrothermal vents haven't been cooled by passage through the rock of the ocean floor, how do you think your fountains of the deep are going to behave? You also have the pH to cope with now.I keep saying that this is your model, why are you refusing to test it? You will never manage to build a valid model unless you test the validity. I've pointed out some problems with your model and what sort of factors you need to look at and test, but you continually handwave these away. Show us that your model is scientifically possible Do the calculations, think about the information that's been provided and factor it in and, above all, stop claiming that there were no hills and that the land was as flat as a pancake, since that directly contradicts any text.

Does anyone fancy calculating the temerature effects if vast quantities of water were released from the crust? I'm sure it's been posted on here years ago, but I can't find it.

Can you show your calculations that your superheated steam would cool enough to have no effects on atmospheric or ocean temperatures? It's your assertion so can you back it up?I'd also appreciate an explanation as to how the mantle can contain water below 100C since the temperature of the mantle is much higher than that There are numerous other references which agree with the temperatures given by Wiki.

Thanks for the links, I remembered the AIG calculations, but thought they were on EvC - that could explain why I couldn't find them with a site search. Both links are very interesting.

The noahic crust of the earth was bombarded with meteorites and asteroids. This shattered the crust over a period of 40 days. [/qs]You'd think that would deserve a passing mention. God wouldn't have needed a flood to wipe out all life, the asteroids would have done it! The crucial question is how much pressure the crust was putting on the water before it was fragmented. What do you think happens to 500C water (kept liquid by pressure) when that pressure is released? So the entire crust sinks into the subterranean water. That means that your subterranean water is beneath the crust at the mantle-crust boundary. Have you any idea of the temperatures there?

I proposed this thread with a specific purpose in mind. It's always been pointless asking for evidence from floodists because it's never forthcoming, so I decided to instead ask for details of their models and then examine those models for scientific validity.If they choose to say that God did it using miracles, then that's fine, but they then lose the chance to claim any scientific support for their model.The problem comes when they try to construct natural explanations as to how the flood happened. For example, we now have been given a model which involves heavy asteroid impacts immediately prior to the flood which the proposer says would wipe out all life on earth but not the ark. Surely with all the heat generated, the ark would be incinerated, being as it's made of wood? Its these inconsistencies which I hoped this thread would highlight.So, just for this thread, the onus is on non-floodists to show floodists why their proposed models won't work. Yes, it's a bit back to front, but we've tried the other way to no avail. They can't or won't provide scientific evidence which supports their models. On the other hand, science can show why the models they propose are flawed.Of course, this depends on them providing details of their proposed models. If they won't do that then they have no place in this thread which is specifically asking them to provide details so that the models can be examined scientifically.

If a reason has been given as to why the ark wouldn't be incinerated, then you can ask for an explanation. Requests for evidence supporting the explanation will not be forthcoming since there isn't any. See, that's the problem, asking for evidence in support of some of these hairbrained ideas is a dead end path. There is no evidence, however the stock in trade answers will trotted out as if they were evidence. Then when told that their evidence isn't evidence, accusations fly that evidence is being ignored.This approach lets floodists showcase their models and the holes in those models can the be pointed out. If a meteor bombardment is claimed to have produced effect X it's up to science to show that, no, it wouldn't and here's why. More and more claims are made which are entirely inconsistent with science and that's what I wanted this thread to point out.Insead of asking floodists to apply science to their models, I'm asking that scientists apply science to floodists models. After all, if floodists knew much about science and how to apply it in the first place they wouldn't be floodists.

Are you proposing this to explain where the water for the flood came from?Don't forget that the water began rising 7 days before the rain started and I believe Noah got on board during this time. You'd think he'd notice the bombardment and shattering of the crust and Moses would have given it a mention when he recorded the tale.What sort of physical evidence would you expect if your idea is correct?

Where in all of that does it say that the "gates" of Heaven were opened for 150 days?Noah went into the ark as the floodwaters were rising, but a week before the rain started. If the "rain" refers to bombardment, where did the water come from to initiate the flood? I think you're really stretching things to claim that "rain" which helped cause a global flood wasn't water, but a whole heap of space rocks.

No, edge, you're just being silly! He's describing how the bombardment opened the subterranean chambers and let the water out You're getting confused with ICANT's model which has a bombardment forming the chambers.Do keep up!