Some water measurements for the Flood

Couldn't have said it better myself...TO YOU!HBD

Yes it was a calculation rather than a measurement. It was based on the Biblical claim of forty days and forty nights of rain, for which there is no estimate of rate so there's a range of possibilities, I've said nothing about an infinite supply.The idea is that the rain was part of it, the fountains of the deep the other part of it, and all that interested me was finding out that at a rate of rainfall that is extremely heavy but not impossible by today's measurements the depth of the Flood could have been achieved without any other source involved. That rate would be substantially reduced by the input of the fountains of the deep. I made no assumptions about how much water was available at either source, just that it rained for forty days and forty nights so the rate is open to adjustment.I don't assume any change in the basic laws of physics and nothing anyone has said about that is more than wild conjecture since you have nothing you can measure to prove anything about it.But one thing is for sure, you cannot "discard" a fact like the forty days and nights of rain, because it comes from God's word, all you can fairly do is change the rate to accommodate what you think wouldn't strain the laws of physics. If any rate would do that according to your reasoning then your reasoning needs adjustment. You weren't there, there's nothing for you to measure, it's nothing but your own mental conjurings that are coming up with such dogmatic statements about the laws of physics. All anyone has at our remove is our imagination, but creationists have belief in the word of God and you don't and that's the big difference.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Fine, we have two competing sets of interpretations, I like mine you like yours, nobody can prove any of it so leave it as is.

How could the 'windows of heaven' be opened without a miracle?

As I keep saying, if you want to consider it a miracle I'm not going to argue with you, but I don't think that's the only possible explanation and the whole Flood scenario is generally treated by SOME creationists as a natural event so I take it as natural too, but it's not crucial to any of it.But if you want a naturalistic explanation, a change in the environment that changed the temperature of the air could have condensed the vapor into water heavy enough to fall.ABE: Also, the way the water sources are stopped suggests a natural source: It was "restrained" which suggests a natural stopping of the rain which further suggests that the "windows" that were opened to release it at the beginning is a metaphor for what happens naturally when a cloud turns from vapor into rain. There is no hint that the source of the rain went away, the rain was restrained so it seems the source was diminished but not eliminated.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

A good start. Now what is the natural model, mechanism, process that will instantly turn the rain on and off all across the world?

Actually Hooah, even though it's off topic in this thread I'm grateful to you for asking me to make a list. It needs quite a bit of refining and fleshing out but it's a good way to try to get all the facts I normally argue from into one systematic statement.

Who said it had to be instantaneous.

But none of the items in the list are facts Faith, except for the fact that you keep repeating them and pretending they are facts.

The Bible does. It turns on on one day and stops 40 days later.What is the model, method, process, mechanics involved?

They are all facts.

That doesn't imply anything "instantaneous" to me, the starting and stopping could both have taken some time to build up and lose momentum.

It does not matter how many times you repeat a falsehood, it does not make it true.

Simple. If you use the Biblical account to draw the known universe you get something like the image below (complete with scripture references). It's clear that the windows of heaven are physical constructs in the formation of the vault or dome. They simply needed to be unlocked and thrown open.However, why Faith, who insists on a clear and simple reading of the Bible, would depart from such a clear and simple reading is beyond me.HBDP.S. Please note, that I do not mean to ridicule the Bible itself, I have the utmost respect and confidence in the Bible. I only mean to ridicule the idea that a plain, simple and literal reading is at all possible, let alone a requirement.

You should know.