Existence of Noah's Ark

Arachnophilia responds to me:

quote:

---

however, you said the bible doesn't describe a storm

---

And again, you're being disingenuous. You admit you haven't been following the thread...have you considered that the source of your confusion is because you haven't been following the thread?I feel like John Kerry: You're jumping on a single phrase and ignoring the entire context in which it was made and then behaving as if you made a valid assessment of the meaning.When I said that the Bible doesn't describe a storm, I did not mean that a storm made absolutely no appearance. I meant that the event described was not a simple storm where, when it stops raining, the land gets dry in a few days. Instead, it talks about a flood. The storm described in the Bible is nothing but a device to get enough water on the ground to cause a flood. When the storm is over, the flood remains.The claim made by riVeRraT has shifted from a flood to a storm. He's behaving as if dumping enough water on a mountain through a rainstorm is equivalent to a flood that covers the mountain.Thus, as you can see, my comment about the Bible not talking about a storm. Noah didn't survive a terrible storm. He survived a flood. The flood came around because of a storm, yes, but the storm was just a device to get enough water to create a flood.

quote:

---

no, it's not. i'm not saying this actually happened.

---

Nor am I saying you are. Instead, riVeRraT is. He has committed the logical error of shifting the goalposts. This entire discussion was about a flood and now he's trying to get away with a storm as if having a great big bucket of water on top of a mountain peak pouring over it is equivalent to a flood of the mountain.

quote:

---

the water came from outside their concept of the universe, and when the flood was over, it went back.

---

But we know that their concept of the universe doesn't match reality.So what does that mean for those who claim a "global flood" was a reality?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

You don't need 100 miles of water for it to be flooded.

---

Then what keeps the water pressed up against the mountain rather than immediately draining into the valley? We're talking about a flood, not a storm.Did you try the experiment I asked you to perform?

quote:

---

Think of the gutters on your house, if the rainfall amount exceeds the drainage capicity of the gutter, it will over flow.

---

Indeed.My house still isn't flooded, though. To do that, you need to have water pressed up against the sides of the building. And the only way to do that is to have the water level of the entire surrounding area rise to that height.When you put a glass on a flat, level surface and pour water in the glass, it doesn't cling to just one side (and please, no silly comments about the "inside" of the glass.) Instead, the water level rises so that the entire inner wall of the glass is covered to the same height.What is keeping water pressed against the side of the building rather than running right off into the river basin?

quote:

---

So what happens if it rains, the river gets deeper, because it can't handle the extra water.

---

You're acting as if the river is the only place the water can flow. You keep forgetting that water flows. Remember your gutter example? If the gutters get clogged for whatever reason, the water FLOWS OVER THE EDGE OF THE GUTTER.And my house still isn't flooded.Did you try the experiment I asked you to perform?

quote:

---

So what if it rained 4" per hour for forty days and nights.

---

You'd have close to 10⁹ cubic miles of water piling up.But there's only about 10⁸ cubic miles of water to be had on the earth. And we can't use any of it because it's already at the lowest point...we need to put this flood water on top of the ocean water.Where did it come from?Where did it go?

quote:

---

You see everyone here keeps thinking small.

---

Incorrect. It's the other way around. You're the one that keeps thinking locally and you need to start thinking globally.What keeps the water pressed up against the side of the mountain in a flood of the mountain rather than draining away into the valley?

quote:

---

A mountain is usually part of a mounatin range, where the whole range would flood.

---

Irrelevant. You're just pushing the question back one level. Eventually, the mountain range dissipates to the plains. What keeps the water pressed against the outside slopes of the mountains?Take a glass and place it on a flat, level surface. While you can certainly take a bit of water and pour it into the glass such that the interior surface is covered in water, how much water are you going to need to cover the exterior surface of the glass with water such that it remains submerged for 20 minutes after you're done doing whatever it is you are going to do with the water?Did you try the experiment I asked you to perform?

quote:

---

The highest part of the mountain range would stick out

---

Then the mountain isn't completely flooded and that is what you are claiming happened. If the highest part is sticking out of the water, then that highest part isn't flooded.Did you try the experiment I asked you to perform?

quote:

---

If we can figure this out, then we can take it to the next step, of it would fit into the story from the bible.

---

But that's just it: It is topologically impossible.Did you try the experiment I asked you to perform?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What keeps the water pressed up against the side of the mountain in a flood of the mountain rather than draining away into the valley?

---

​

Its just amazing that you can't see what I am trying to say.
More water, fo rthe time that it is raining.

---

That isn't a flood. That's just rain.There is plenty of water to cover all the dry land with a fine mist. Hell, just take the water out of the atmosphere and you have enough water to cover the earth to a depth of one inch.That isn't a flood because it immediately runs to the lowest point. We need to cover the tops of the mountains and keep them covered after it stops raining.

quote:

---

I am not talking about after the rain stops.

---

Then you're not talking about a flood and have wasted everybody's time.

quote:

---

Try your little experiment, but first make the mass 25% the surface area of the tub, then pour a thimble full of water and watch it run off. This would represent a regular rainfall amount.
Now talk a small bucket and do the same, this would represent the rainfall amount I am talking about. For the period of time that it was raining, it would be flooded.

---

Incorrect.For a period of time, it would be raining. Quite hard at that. For it to be flooded, though, the water would have to remain covering the object after I stopped it on.Did you try the experiment I asked you to? I'm just asking for 20 minutes. Quite short as floods go. Do whatever you want with the water but then you need to stop, remove all paraphernalia, and let the water do whatever it wants.If, 20 minutes later, the object is still completely covered in water, then you can say you've got a flood.

quote:

---

And if you want to compare run-off rates to real life, you would have to make a scale time-clock to represent how fast it would run-off in full scale.

---

(*ahem*)Someone in this very thread gave you information about how to calculate runoff. Weren't you paying attention? Do you not remember that the runoff speed is related to the amount of water above the point of runoff? The more water, the faster the runoff.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Then the mountain isn't completely flooded and that is what you are claiming happened. If the highest part is sticking out of the water, then that highest part isn't flooded.

---

​

But a t rainfall rate of 4" per hour, it would be wet, running-off, and flooded

---

Incorrect. At that rate, you just have a hard rain. The water would easily runoff faster than the water is coming down.Question: How much is four inches per hour? On a practical visual scale, how much water is coming down at four inches per hour over a square inch?Let's assume it doesn't runoff and switch to the metric system since it's easier to visualize. According to SI, an inch is 2.54 centimeters exactly. Thus, a square inch is 6.4516 square centimeters. Therefore, a cubic inch is 16.387064 cubic centimeters and 4 cubic inches is about 65.5 cubic centimeters per hour.That's about 1.1 cubic centimeters per minute.That's about 0.018 cubic centimeters per second or about 18 cubic millimeters (a cubic millimeter is a microliter) per second over a 6.5 square centimeter area.You do know how big 18 microliters is, don't you? It's about the size of a single drop from an eyedropper.Do you seriously think that a rate of only 20 microliters per second per 6.5 square centimeters is sufficient downflow to keep the mountain top completely covered in water, or might the runoff velocity be much faster than that?

quote:

---

Can you explain your thought processs that leads you to do this?

---

Yes.Did you even bother to calculate it? Do you realize just how piddling a rainstorm 4 inches per hour is? I admit that I made a mistake in a previous post. In order to flood the earth as it is now up to Mt. Everest in 40 days, you don't need 4 inches per hour. You need about 5.5 inches per minute. You need a rate 60 times faster than what you have suggested.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!