Originally posted by 7ate9Nothing voluminous can fit in an area it would fit in a volume. And actually you should be saying something like "thinks a unknown volume cannot be filled by a known volume.".
winners are losers and losers are winners, but a real loser thinks a partially know amount of water couldn't possibly fit into an unknown area.... and the biggest of the biggest losers will continually take wins for it.
So 7, do you have an estimate of the amount of water required to cover the highest mountains to a depth of 15 cubits? I'd love to see your estimate as you were ever so critical of mine.
For reference here was my estimate so people can compare:
The surface area of the Earth is around 5.1*10^14 square metres. In the Bible it says the waters reached a depth of 15 cubits (6.858 metres) above the mountain tops (Genesis 7:20). So that gives us the volume of an outer shell of water. Now let's think about how much water is needed inside this shell to make up for areas which aren't mountain tops. Let's assume that the mountains talked about only refers to Mount Ararat (5,165 metres). And let's assume that, on average, the surface of material (land or mean sea level) is one quarter this high (it's actually much much less that that but I'm just running ball park figures and this high estimate gives a low volume, remember 2/3rds of the world is sea).
That's an extra 5.1*10^14 * 1291.25 cubic metres.
So a conservative estimate of the amount of water required of 6.62*10^17 cubic metres of water.
So how does that compare to what we know of the water supply of the world?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004674.html
Excluding Ocean Water (as our water cover needs the oceans to remain where they are) we have 3.69*10^16 cubic metres of water at our disposal. And that's counting every bit of water closer than Mars. And yet somehow we need 20x more water.
Originally posted by XanthosNZwould you not have to known what the landmass was at the time of the flood?
Nothing voluminous can fit in an area it would fit in a volume. And actually you should be saying something like "thinks a unknown volume cannot be filled by a known volume.".
So 7, do you have an estimate of the amount of water required to cover the highest mountains to a depth of 15 cubits? I'd love to see your estimate as you were ever so critical of m ...[text shortened]... counting every bit of water closer than Mars. And yet somehow we need 20x more water.
surely the landscape was different then to now ?
i'm no scientist, can you tell?
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundIf the landmass is different to the point where the water would be right (which would have a very flat earth indeed) we have to account for a whole bunch of rock and stuff that's missing instead.
would you not have to known what the landmass was at the time of the flood?
surely the landscape was different then to now ?
i'm no scientist, can you tell?