How Hard Was it Raining During the Flood? Could the Ark Survive?

So there is no known scientific explanation of the flood and all theories are demonstrably false.1ft or 30ft of rain per hour globally would have the same end result. And it doesn't really matter if the global flood was 1000ft or 30,000ft.

This has been pointed out to Faith before by myself and others.As I recall the response is usually along the lines of either 'their faith wasn't strong enough' or 'they got the science wrong'.So either they weren't true Christians - about which I have no opinion since I'm an agnostic - or they were scientifically inept.Now I agree that these guys lived around two hundred years ago and geology has come a long way since then, but they had one thing going for them that makes their attempts at science likely to be better than anything a mdern day YEC can come up with.They were willing to go where the evidence led, even if it meant discarding previously strongly held beliefs.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

There is a rather simple and obvious explanation. The flood story is a fable. And that's fully consistent with science.

Even more, not only is there NO scientific explanation all of the flood and all of the flood theories demonstarbly false, there is absolute positive evidence that the flood did not happen. Regardless of the fact that many people believe it happened, it is simply nothing more than a plot device in a story and every bit as real as Jack's Magic Bean or the Cow that Jumped over the Moon.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It was pretty flimsy evidence as I recall. The mere appearance of the order of the fossils was enough to do them in. Fragile faith.Yes, evidence and only evidence is admired at EvC. Evidence is king, evidence is God. It's the highest virtue to be "willing to go where the evidence leads" over "strongly held beliefs." And obviously there is no talking anybody out of that arbitrary value system. It has the weight of the absolute on it here.But the virtue of a Christian is to stand on faith even in the face of supposed evidence that contradicts it. And this is not as irrational as all the ridicule would make one think. In the case of the flood and all things past, NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN FOR SURE by the "evidence." It's all speculation. You will never get that, you insist you can know the past, that's it's falsifiable blah blah blah but it's not.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You said it, Faith. Not me. You seem to be the only one around here that's absolutely sure of stuff, anyway.

I'm sure the flood happened. I'm not sure at all how it happened.

No Faith, that is Hubris. Well, some things can be known with such a high degree of certainty that they approach surety. That is simply FALSE! It is not speculation at all but rather conclusions based on an overwhelming body of evidence and to call it speculation after the amount of evidence that has been presented to you is nothing but an example of Wilfull Ignorance.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I am going to have to start a thread on why faith in spite of overwhelming evidence is even more of a virtue than regular faith.

I don't recognize a difference.

Wait until the thread!

And you would have us substitute what in place of that evidence that you deride? Your interpretation of the Bible? No thanks. And you say in effect, "evidence has the weight of the absolute"? Well yes, absolutely, at least until some solid contradictery evidence comes along, then see how fast it changes. Not so absolute after all. It is called "science". Too bad you have so little regard for it, this being a SCIENCE forum.

That's not going to help you Faith. The atmosphere can only hold so much water vapor. For the same reason that the idea of a vapor canopy before the Flood has been discredited, the idea that all that water evaporated after the Flood is just wishful thinking on the part of floodists. Anyway the point is, it is impossible for ANY amount of rain to fall world wide, because of the heat released. In other words, unless there is water evaporating somewhere to absorb the released heat, there cannot be rain falling somewhere else. So that means if the Flood happened at least half of the world had to be experiencing sunshine while the other half was experiencing the deluge. So the water was evaporating as fast as it was falling. In other words, the water level worldwide is not going to change AT ALL because of rainfall alone, even though the local water level would be going up - but only to a point, not enough to raise sea levels worldwide beyond what they may have been raised by the fountains of the deep. So ALL of the water that resulted in a world wide rise in sea levels had to come from the fountains of the deep. I think we are back to the earth shape changing. That is the only way it could have happened. Good luck with that.

The necessary water requirements merely to bring sea level to Everest is far more then the amount of water that currently exists on the planet.The necessary water to cover the Earth would have been astronomical. The oceans cover roughly 2/3rds of the Earth. That is sea level, to cover the highest point, Everest (29,028 feet feet above sea level), would require JUST to raise sea level, 756,821,205 Cubic miles of water.(29,028/5,280) = 5.49 miles above sea level.water area, 137,854,500 square miles X 5.49 = 756,821,205 cubic miles. That's just sea level.The fundemental problem is that the Oceans, seas and bays make up 96.5% of total water on the Earth and they only have 321,000,000 cubic miles. That leaves a huge amount of water that would need to come from somewhere.Area of Earth's Land Surface - The Physics FactbookThere's simply isn't that much water on Earth to allow such a flood.
Some argue that the mountains weren’t that tall yet. That makes no sense whatsoever given the rates of tectonic plate drift. Plates move at 1 inch a year. That’s 500 feet over 6,000 years. Everest is by far taller then that. Some argue that plates moved faster. To create Everest in 6,000 years would mean plates would have to move almost five feet every year in the same direction. While plate movements are related to the Earth’s core heat, the necessary heat to have that much movement would mean the Earth’s core would have to be several hundred times hotter.I'm glad you guys already went over the fountains of the deep and superheated steam problem. Imagine 756,821,205 cubic miles of 800 degree steam being released. What is the energy of that much steam comparative to the normal air temperature?

From what I understand... Some people here believe in God creating everything. Including some that believe He made life through evolution. Coming from RNA to DNA, etc... to modern man..If indeed the universe started from a ball of energy, some say no bigger than a grapefruit, which then exploded into everything in existence--If this God made the laws of the known and unknown universe, why is it so hard to believe He could have orcastrated a flood on a SINGLE planet in THIS galaxy? Sure, plenty of you provide great scientific explanations for how a global flood could NOT happen. God creating the universe is explanation enough that a flood on this earth would be easily done. Yes, this does require faith. Faith is what a Christian is all about though.It simply comes down to whether or not you believe in God. If you do, you swallow all of it... not just the parts that fit ok for YOUR life.xXGEARXx