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

Ok, just for chuckles, what ARE the possibilities besides Everest, then? Which mountains existed before the Flood? You are the one rewriting geology. You tell us.

That's not what I was suggesting. The idea was to start with Everest and work your way down to other possible interpretations, as they come up in the thread.In any case START WITH EVEREST. That ought to give some pretty solid numbers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why don't we dispense with a bunch of this and just declare that a "very high hill" or "mountain" in Noahspeak was, say, 970 feet tall? Then we need 970 feet + 15 cubits, or 1000 feet, or 12,000 inches of rainfall + spring-of-the-deep water in 40 days. Now say half is from each source: 6000 inches rain in 40 days is 150 inches per day or 6.25 inches per hour. Worldwide. Without a pause.And then Walt Brown, for one, has the "deep" being caverns 10 miles down. It's over 800 degrees F that deep, but let's let the problem of half our flood being superheated steam wait for another thread.

Starting with Everest, we can get close enough by just taking my numbers above times 30. 187.5 inches or 15.5 FEET per hour.

Thank you, Faith.Can we work on a formula?The mean radius of the earth is approximately 6.4 million meters (exact = 6.37 x 10^6 m). Its volume is then:(4/3) x 3.14 x 6400000^3This comes to 1,097,509,500,000,000,000,000 cubic meters.Now would that be our v1 or v2? It is v2 because it is without the water. Now let's add in the 8,848 meters of Everest and find our first v1.Is this
(4/3) x 3.14 x 6408848^3 ?Does this come to 1,102,067,763,400,000,000,000 cubic meters?1,102,067,763,400,000,000,000
- 1,097,509,500,000,000,000,000Carry the 1....4,558,263,400,000,000,000That means we need 4,558,263,400,000,000,000 cubic meters water to cover the earth up to the height of Mount Everest!I need help with the rest. Let's start with 0% Fountains of the deep and 100% rainfall. Can someone else help me with the rate of rainfall over 960 hours? Is the surface area of the earth important here?Is my math right?

It appears to be, but my approach above is a lot simpler. We hardly need second-decimal-place accuracy here.

Well you are still avoiding the difficult questions but OK then, Everest is 29, 028 ft high. Add to that 30 feet and we have 29,058 feet. Change to miles we have 5.5 miles.Multiply by 197,000,000 square miles and we have:1,083,500,000 cubic miles.Now all we need is a calculation of the volume of the land above sea level. Subtract that number from mine and you will have an approximation of the cubic miles of water that fell as rain and came up from the deep. Then subtract your estimate of the amount that came up from the deep and you will have the volume of rain. Should be a cinch but I will let someone else do it and get the glory. Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.

According to Wikipedia

Surface Area 	510,065,600 km
Land 	        148,939,100 km (29.2 %)
Water 	        361,126,400 km (70.8 %)

I think the problem with your method is you are not taking into account the volume displaced by the land and mountains which lies above sea level. Think of it as a giant bathtub with a big pile of dirt in the middle. It takes less water to fill it.

I think it is only total surface area that we need as the water has to fill in everywhere above sea level, including where water exists already.

This, too shouldn't be a very big percentage of the total volume - not worth getting excited about for the purpose at hand. We could say 20% if we really wanted to be generous.What we really need is someone to step up to the plate and have a swing at identifying "the deep." My take is that it refers to the waters that surround the platter-shaped immobile Earth of old Hebrew cosmology. That might keep them cooler that 800 degrees, at least.

I agree. I believe it was you who presented a much simpler method of calculating the rate of water rising. Just take the height of the highest mountain (whether it be Everest or another agreed-upon mountain) and divide it by the time.For some reason I thought we needed to find the total volume of the water. While this is interesting (and where did all this water go?), it is not actually relevant to the topic of the thread.Have we figured out a rate of rise using Mount Everest?

Yes. 31 feet per hour, 24/7 for 40 days from fountains + windows.

Yes. I dub thee "Disbelief Stomping Feet" Edited by Chief Infidel, : No reason given.

Therein lies the rub. If one starts calculating the theoretical amount of water that the crust can hold, for example, I am sure a very large number can be obtained. However, how much of that water would have been "available" and what would have been the force propelling it to the surface? The force not only has to overcome gravity, but it also has to overcome adhesive and cohesive forces holding the water right where it is. These questions are pretty much unknowable, so, as with all attempts to "rationalize" the Flood, this one is bound to fail as well.