Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,924 Year: 4,181/9,624 Month: 1,052/974 Week: 11/368 Day: 11/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Hard Was it Raining During the Flood? Could the Ark Survive?
Chief Infidel
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 125 (333197)
07-19-2006 5:06 AM


This is my first thread so I'm open to any suggestions.
I'm interested in the rate of rainfall during the flood. This question will invloves some math and we will have to develop a forumla or two.
Specifically, I would like to know how much water it would take to cover the entire earth from current sea level to the peak of Mount Everest. Then if we can take this volume of water and find an average rate of fall per hour over 40 days and 40 nights (960 hours).
Everest is 8,848 meters (29,028 feet) tall. (Mount Ararat is 5,137 metres (16,854 ft) at its peak.)
The diameter of Earth is 7,926 mi (12,760 km). 29.2% of the Earth is land and the remaining 70.8% is covered with water. The total surface area of the earth is approximately 197,000,000 square miles (509,600,000 square kilometers). I do not know the average elevation of land on earth and this seems important - if we cannot find an average elevation we may have to just assign a number here, such as 100 meters.
We will need to find the volume of the earth covered with water, subtract the volume of the Earth without the floodwater, and this will give us the total volume of water rained down during the flood. Then we can divide the total amount of water dropped in the flood by the number of hours that it rained.
If we find that the ran fell at a rate close to 9 meters/hour uniformly accross the entire earth, what does this mean? In terms that a layman can understand, was being under rain of the great flood closer to standing under a shower or under niagra falls?
Then finally, can a wooden roof survive this type of beating for 40 days and nights?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminFaith, posted 07-19-2006 5:50 AM Chief Infidel has replied
 Message 18 by Coragyps, posted 07-19-2006 3:23 PM Chief Infidel has not replied
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 10:10 PM Chief Infidel has not replied
 Message 53 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 07-20-2006 3:06 AM Chief Infidel has not replied

  
Chief Infidel
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 125 (333220)
07-19-2006 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminFaith
07-19-2006 5:50 AM


Harder than I thought
Thanks, Geology and Great Flood Sounds Good. I forgot about "the fountains of the deep." If someone can explain these to me I would love to hear it.
Perhaps we can run the numbers a couple of times. The first time, which would produce the maximum rate of rainfall, can use Everest and all of the water coming from rain. Then, at the very least, we can use the height of the flood at the top of the grand canyon elevation (8255 ft?). If someone has another reasonable alternative for the height of the highest mountain of the time I would entertain using that number.
From there, we can assume lower mountains and some percentage of the floodwaters coming from "the fountains of the deep," and see where that gets us. First I'd like to get a handle on just how much water it would take to flood the earth. Then we can speculate on how much came from rainfall.
I'm flexible with the numbers. They are variables and I need the most help with developing a formula. Once the formula is in place we can play with the numbers.
Maybe
v1 = volume of earth with floodwaters
v2 = volume of earth without floodwaters
F = Volume of water from the fountains of the deep
R = Volume of water from rain
v1 - v2 = F + R
Finding v1 and v2 is the hard part for me. The total of F and R divided by 960 hours is going to be the rate at which the water rose for Noah. From there, we can guess at percentages of water from fountains of the deep and rainfall and adjust accordingly.
Edited by Chief Infidel, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminFaith, posted 07-19-2006 5:50 AM AdminFaith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by deerbreh, posted 07-19-2006 2:43 PM Chief Infidel has not replied

  
Chief Infidel
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 125 (333354)
07-19-2006 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by deerbreh
07-19-2006 2:34 PM


I saw the 15 cubits as well.
Perhaps Gen 7:20 means that the floodwaters exceeded the tops of the highest mountains at the time by 15 cubits.
Either way, I would appreciate it if someone with more math skills than me could create a formula that we can play around with. Let's get that down first.
Once the formula is created, we can plug in different variables for mountain heights.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by deerbreh, posted 07-19-2006 2:34 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by deerbreh, posted 07-19-2006 2:46 PM Chief Infidel has not replied
 Message 11 by deerbreh, posted 07-19-2006 2:53 PM Chief Infidel has not replied
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 07-19-2006 2:58 PM Chief Infidel has replied

  
Chief Infidel
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 125 (333403)
07-19-2006 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Faith
07-19-2006 3:05 PM


Re: Adding on to scripture with no high mountains claim
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 6400000^3
This 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
- 1,097,509,500,000,000,000,000
Carry the 1....
4,558,263,400,000,000,000
That 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 3:05 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Coragyps, posted 07-19-2006 3:42 PM Chief Infidel has not replied

  
Chief Infidel
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 125 (333439)
07-19-2006 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Coragyps
07-19-2006 4:06 PM


Re: Adding on to scripture with no high mountains claim
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Coragyps, posted 07-19-2006 4:06 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Coragyps, posted 07-19-2006 4:43 PM Chief Infidel has replied
 Message 31 by jar, posted 07-19-2006 4:47 PM Chief Infidel has not replied

  
Chief Infidel
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 125 (333444)
07-19-2006 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ringo
07-19-2006 2:58 PM


Another Tribe Maybe
Are you really the chief of all infidels? I've been called an infidel. Does that make you my boss?
Yes. I dub thee "Disbelief Stomping Feet"
Edited by Chief Infidel, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 07-19-2006 2:58 PM ringo has not replied

  
Chief Infidel
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 125 (333451)
07-19-2006 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Coragyps
07-19-2006 4:43 PM


Re: Adding on to scripture with no high mountains claim
Yes. 31 feet per hour, 24/7 for 40 days from fountains + windows.
Great!
So that's about 6 inches a minute or 1 inch every 10 seconds.
Assuming that this is all rainfall, what can I compare this to in my daily life? How does this compare to a light spring shower? A giant waterfall? Is it constant buckets? Is the water in droplets or is it a continuous stream from the sky? In my 3 X 3 ft shower, how many 10 gallon/minute shower heads would this be?
EDITED TO ADD...Good call jar. I knew there was a reason why I wanted to calculate the total volume of the water.
Edited by Chief Infidel, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Coragyps, posted 07-19-2006 4:43 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Coragyps, posted 07-19-2006 5:07 PM Chief Infidel has not replied
 Message 38 by jar, posted 07-19-2006 5:27 PM Chief Infidel has not replied

  
Chief Infidel
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 125 (333458)
07-19-2006 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
07-19-2006 5:03 PM


Re: Adding on to scripture with no high mountains claim
Where are you getting this from? Do the periodic eruptions of undersea volcanoes predictably cause tsunamis?
Do these eruptions case the water on earth to rise at a rate faster than 31ft/hour?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 5:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Chief Infidel
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 125 (333481)
07-19-2006 6:16 PM


There is an easy way to solve our conical problem without taking into account the total volume of water: We can just say that the water rose at a rate of 31ft/hour from the perspective of someone on the earth - the actual amount of water being added to the earth would just have to steadily increase at the same rate that the an atmospheric cones increases in volume. So although it would be raining more water at the end of the flood than the beginning, the rate of water collecting on earth would appear steady.
Even if all the water were added as rain, the rain would increase in downpour over the 40 days and 40 nights, but it would do so at a rate that would give the appearance of 31ft per hour.
Now that we have determined that for the flood to reach the top of Mount Everest in 40 days and nights it would have to rise at 31ft/hour, can we plug in another number for a lower mountain?
What is the best estimate of the height of the mountains during Noah's time?
Also, people have mentioned 800 degree water. Can someone explain this? How did you get this number?
Also, can anyone explain the "fountains of the deep"? What is the best evidence of these fountains? Are they volcanoes that erupt water? Have we seen these in modern times? Is there any evidence that there is a large amount of water beneath the earth's surface today? I am willing to entertain the theory that some of this water comes from these fountains if I can see some evidence of them.
Edited by Chief Infidel, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Coragyps, posted 07-19-2006 7:28 PM Chief Infidel has not replied
 Message 42 by DrJones*, posted 07-19-2006 7:32 PM Chief Infidel has not replied

  
Chief Infidel
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 125 (333618)
07-20-2006 4:14 AM


Ladies and Gentlemen!
Let's not lose focus here. I'm really interested in the volume of rainfall/fountain flow and rate at which the water rose, not the absurdity of the story in general.
Does any have a reasonable suggestion as to how high the mountains of Noah's time were?

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by CK, posted 07-20-2006 5:12 AM Chief Infidel has not replied
 Message 57 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 07-20-2006 5:32 AM Chief Infidel has not replied

  
Chief Infidel
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 125 (333765)
07-20-2006 3:17 PM


Gotta Have Faith!
Alright, alright. I know how ridiculous we can make this sound. But mockery - as fun as it is - is not going to help us understand one another. And I'm not trying to admonish anyone in particular or anything like that.
What I'm interested in finding out is just what the creationists believe. Like how high was the highest mountain of the time of Noah? I'd still like another number to comapre to our 31ft/hour. Are there any sources on this?
Is there a source (and it does not have to be the most scientific - even a link to a creationist website will help me understand) that can explain the fountains of the deep to me?
Creationists, here's your chance to explain how we get around the alleged superheated water problem! Is it even a problem? Why or why not?
Also, I would be interested in finding out how many shower heads I would need in my 3X3' shower to simulate rain of 31ft/hour. I understand that 10 gallons per minute is very heavy and the average shower head is 3.5 gpm. Again, this is assuming that all water is from rain.
How many standard 3.5 gpm shower heads would it take in my 3x3 shower to simulate the flood rising at 31ft/hour?
If any of the issues that I have raised have already been beaten to death in other threads please show me and I'll read up there!
Edited by Chief Infidel, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 07-20-2006 3:36 PM Chief Infidel has not replied
 Message 64 by jar, posted 07-20-2006 3:41 PM Chief Infidel has not replied
 Message 65 by Coragyps, posted 07-20-2006 5:25 PM Chief Infidel has replied

  
Chief Infidel
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 125 (333807)
07-20-2006 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Coragyps
07-20-2006 5:25 PM


Don't Drop The Soap
A 3 x 3 foot shower stall seems smallish - but each inch of depth is 1296 cubic inches or 5.61 gallons. 31 feet/hr is 6.2 inches/minute so it's 34.7 gal/min or about ten shower heads.
Sounds pretty intense.
What if I had a wooden umbrella? How long would a finished piece of wood last under a steady stream of water like this? What if instead of a finished piece of wood, we used the finished wooden roof of a shed or an ark?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Coragyps, posted 07-20-2006 5:25 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Chief Infidel
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 125 (333888)
07-21-2006 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Randy
07-20-2006 9:53 PM


Hot and Muggy, Like Virginia
Wow. Thanks Randy. So it would be very hot and very windy. This also sounds pretty intense.
What do we know about water evaporation? Is it a cooling process? If all that water evaporated over 10 months, how much would this cool the earth?
Can we also work backwards? Let's say that the earth was at the same temperature today as it was after the flood...If all that water evaporated and the earth cooled after the flood, how hot was it before teh evaporation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Randy, posted 07-20-2006 9:53 PM Randy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 07-21-2006 2:00 AM Chief Infidel has replied
 Message 73 by Randy, posted 07-21-2006 6:14 AM Chief Infidel has not replied

  
Chief Infidel
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 125 (333901)
07-21-2006 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Faith
07-21-2006 2:00 AM


I read your link
The equations, when applied to a cloud of water droplets sandwiched between flowing air and water, indicate that large water droplets thrown up by cresting waves in rough seas inhibit the turbulence in the air over the ocean. Without this turbulence to drain energy from the swirling winds, winds can build to tremendous speeds. Without turbulence, friction between the air and water would be reduced by a factor of 1,000, Chorin said, sometimes allowing winds to rise to speeds eight times greater than would be the case with turbulence.
...
Nevertheless, they note that evaporative cooling also serves to reduce turbulence and thus allow winds to build.
It seems that the flood conditions (both the rain and later the evaporation) would be perfect for hurricanes - massive ones beyond the scale of anything that we have ever seen since the flood, according to the link that you posted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 07-21-2006 2:00 AM Faith has not replied

  
Chief Infidel
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 125 (334006)
07-21-2006 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
07-21-2006 12:33 PM


Don't quit now, I just got here!
A whole planet covered with hurricanes isn't going to behave the way a few hurricanes here and there behave anyway.
I assume it would probably get pretty rough, like the surface of Saturn. Supersonic winds and all that.
Things would probably have been so different I don't see the point in extrapolating anything that is known back to that event any more. The problem with all this is that nobody knows what would have happened. It's all guesswork based on the barest of hints in the Bible. I've had fun with the guessing at times but really it's futile.
If nobody explains the flood (and how Noah survived it), how will a skeptic ever believe it? Is it futile because it simply cannot be explained?
Are you really going to throw in the towel?
If I've learned one thing at EvC it's not to take anything anybody says about the supposed physics of the flood seriously any more.
This is very interesting. In my mind, the flood is paramount to validity of creation story. Without the flood to explain the grand canyon, the alleged geologic column, etc, how can they be reconciled with what we know in the sciences today?
Can you at least give us a guestimate at the highest mountain of Noah's time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 07-21-2006 12:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 07-21-2006 2:11 PM Chief Infidel has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024