But perhaps something like that happened, I don't know. If something like that happened it would contribute to explaining how the sea floor could have dropped at the height of the Flood to permit the water to drain back into the ocean basin. I admit that all this sounds physically impossible, but nobody knows what actually happened and it would fit with what the Biblical account says.
I am afraid the scenario you describe is not tenable based on the description.
As we all agree from the standpoint of what the biblical account describes, the flood had two sources: the rain and the fountains of the deep. The degree to which each contributed to the actual volume of water is unknown, as Faith indicated. However, we can look at the end result, which was a flooded Earth and then take it from there.
Now, as per the biblical account, the Earth is flooded. i.e., all land masses are entirely covered by water to a level that matches 'the highest peaks'. How tall these peaks are is something Faith says does not necessarily reflect the height of the tallest mountains today. i.e. Mt. Everest. So fine, let us go with a notion that the tallest peaks were much smaller. Let's say, 100 ft.
So here we are. The Earth is flooded to a varying depth no less than 100 ft.
So now, what happens to the water? As anyone who is familiar with the properties of hydrodynamics, water, like most liquids, will reach a certain state of equilibrium if we are at some point where no other forces are being applied. The only source of water removal at this point is evaporation.
Now as was mentioned in another thread, we already know the maximum amount of water that can be held in our vapor canopy. The total water can only account for approximately 1-6 inches of water removal from the total water volume that has resulted in the flood. So assuming that evaporation now takes effect, the resultant water level of the Earth would only drop by a depth of 1-6 inches. Thus leaving, using my depth assumption above, over 99 feet of water still covering the tallest peak. There is no way for this remaining water to go anywhere since the fountains of the deep, which were holding this water (allegedly) are now 'opened' and if the force they applied was a net positive, there is no balancing force to draw the water back. That would require suction.
So now, we have poor Noah floating on his boat still looking for land. And it is nowhere to be found.
But since evaporation can't explain the removal of that much water in a period of something like five months we need another explanation. Which is where the dropping of the sea floor becomes a possibility. Creationists have to use their ingenuity to come up with such explanations. It would be nice if our opponents would exert a little of their ingenuity in the same direction once in a while rather than being content with the first piece of debunkery that strikes them.
Faith, I already took the drop of the sea floor into account in the original assumptions. The Earth, at equilibrium post flood already had a drop in the sea floor resultant from the fountains of the deep releasing their water. Which means they cannot account for removal of the water after the fact.
But "our" vapor canopy is most likely nothing like the original vapor canopy that existed from the Creation to the Flood. You accepted some of the Biblical account, all you have to do is keep thinking like a creationist. Help us out here.
Actually, no. We know precisely what the vapor canopy was like because it is easy to calculate the maximum amount of volume of water that it can support. This was already explained to you in another thread. And no, I did not accept some of the biblical account. I am using it as reference because that is the foundation of your argument.
Perhaps that is provided by the space that might have been left beneath the sea floor as the fountains evacuated it -- a vacuum in other words.
Please read my post again. As I stated, if the fountains released the water, they exerted positive pressure. How precisely do they now suddenly exert negative pressure?
If you're going to accept any of the Biblical account, why not all of it?
I will say it again: I do not accept some of the biblical account. I am using it as reference because that is the foundation of your argument.
Except of course we know it was found because the Bible says so. All we have to do is bring science into line with the Bible.
Riiiight. Believe the bible because it is the inspired word of god and we know that because the bible says so. Seriously, do you even listen to yourself sometimes?
That is the creationist's Mission Impossible but of course we believe it to be ultimately possible. You are welcome to join in the effort. All it takes is discarding anything that contradicts the Biblical account and exerting your scientific imagination to finding explanations that support it.
Does this require a head injury as a prerequisite? Or can it be achieved through a combination of inherent gullibility and a genetic predisposition to extreme denialism?