Some water measurements for the Flood

What are you trying to demonstrate here? That there is sufficient volume of sky in order to produce the Noahic Flood? Nobody disputes that.The problem with this bunch of nonsense, given that you are not taking into account the "fountains of the deep", is the water cycle. Rain water comes from evaporation from lakes, oceans, etc. So you cannot raise the level of water generally on the earth using rain. All you can obtain is local flooding that will remains until the run off reaches the oceans. But once the water is at sea level, then there would be no runoff time. No more rise in sea level. No possibility of the water covering whatever "little mountains" you believe existed only a few thousand years ago.You are going to have to produce a natural or super natural source of water in order to create a global flood using rain. I'll leave your silly extrapolation of local rainfall over a few hours to global rain fall over a month and a half for someone else to deal with.

The easiest way to do the calculation is to consider the water to be a thin shell covering current the surface of the earth. So the volume of water would be 4*pi*r^2 * h.

Why would this be? How can you reject any explanation that is consistent with the Bible? And evaporation certainly would be.The Bible does not just say "fountains of the deep" and "raining" are the sources. The Bible says that the opening of the "fountains of the deep" and "the windows of heaven" were the sources of water.The Bible also tells us that the canopy was still present well after the Flood was over in Psalms 148: 4-6.In short your explanation is not consistent with the literal words of the Bible, and you are as guilty as anyone else here of departing from the Bible just because science intrudes. So what kind of silly game are you playing here?And no, it is not even the "Creationist" game. Because Creationists are not of one mind about the processes that took place. AIG absolutely denies that the canopy model works, while ICR is willing to postulate a sun that is only 1% as active that of the current sun in order to keep the planet from baking under a canopy. In both cases we see Creationists picking different parts of science to agree with or disagree with. Actually, the game you are playing is sheer folly. There are a thousand different points of departure from science, and no particular reason to reject any non-scientific explanation given that all science can be scrapped to produce the result you want. It seems that about the only explanation you won't accept is that God exerted himself in the slightest.

I said you were a liar and a fraud.

Here is one Creationists take on that question:The Fountains of Noah's Flood and the Windows of Heaven

quote:

---

This "mist" seems to indicate that there was a great deal of heated water present under the Earth and relatively close to the surface, or at least making its way to the surface at various places in order to produce this mist. A Divine reconfiguration of the Earth's geology, during the process of the seven days of Genesis when God made the "foundation of the world" (See the chapter entitled "Creation or Catabolism?"), is the only possible explanation. Surely the Lord knew that He had created an unstable situation that would eventually cause the flood centuries later in the days of Noah. Granted, this is not a scientific answer, but one that is theologically sound given our understanding of God's omnipotence and foreknowledge.

---

In other words, when God told Noah about the Flood and its cause, he was simply acting as a very accurate meteorologist.

When God says he is going to open the windows of Heaven, there is every reason to believe that the act being spoken of is supernatural. In fact, that is the obvious explanation for everything that does not happen according to physics. Why is it not a use of nature to allow the sun to move backwards, and yet it is a use of nature to suspend water in a canopy above the earth. There is absolutely nothing textual to support any distinction between those things.Certainly not just because you say so. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You have not provided any reason that would distinguish between the sun moving backwards, and water being suspended above the earth. My comment that there is no textual reason would be easy to rebut with a textual reason. I note that you did not bother giving one even in your response.

I think the flood qualifies under that definition. As does opening the windows of heaven.It is as I thought. Your reason is not text based. That is not the understanding of people who read the Bible. The canopy is described as being still present in Psalms 148 as many commentators have noted. So when did it disappear?

I'll settle for that answer. What I won't settle for is that she gleaned her position from the Bible, or that it is the 'traditional Protestant view' or anything similar.But the issue is really at the heart of this thread. Why even bother doing a calculation about the permissible rate of rain fall if you don't deal with the source of the water. Other than demonstrating mastery of the twelve times tables, what was the point of that display of arithmetic in the OP?

The above is followed by a list of links that simply don't point out the place in the text where the actions in question are not miracles. You are not being asked here whether the actions happened, but instead about what the Bible says is the nature of the actions. For that reason, your post is a complete failure to address the issue at hand. You can believe whatever you want. But if we are not going to visit the text, and question your stance on what it says, then what is the point of this debate? Yes, 5 times 12 is indeed 60. Discussion over?

Is this some kind of joke?

Yes, and your case is readily seen as weak to non-existent.What part of the scripture presents the aggregating of the animal as miraculous? Did you not just agree that such was miraculous without checking to see how it was presented in the text.

Does, in fact, Genesis say that the water came from the atmosphere? No. So when you use the word gather, what you are actually doing is filling in what you perceive as gaps with non-Biblical explanation.Genesis actually lists two sources of water and says nothing about water coming from the atmosphere. If rain is literally rain, then it came from the limited supply of clouds. If God made more clouds, that would be miraculous If the rain was not literally rain, then the source is miraculous. None of which is specified anywhere in Genesis. Wholly made up, and, with the possible exception of the high mountains, of absolutely no relevance to the story in Genesis. Just more extra-Biblical nonsense.The Bible tells us there was no man and no rain in Genesis 2:5. So we don't have to guess whether rain was part of the original creation. But at least one of those things was different by the time of the Flood. And there is nothing to say about whether or not both things were different.So when people say they don't "gather" what you gather, the issue is not necessarily a lack of belief. It is that they don't take the same liberties with the text that you do.

You've made so many anti-science comments and called scientists stupid so many times, both here and on your blog, that we know that this statement cannot possibly be true.

Exactly so. I don't think you are unique, just non-Biblical.