I am reposting this information since it is germaine to the discussion regarding the Bibical Flood. Please note the ENORMOUS volume difference between actual water on earth and the amount needed for even enough to cover Mount Ararat. My thanks to Steven Timm who wrote this. Sue Bishop Date: Mon, 2 Jul 90 23:53:54 EDT From: TIMM@FNAL.Bitnet ------------------------------------------------------------------------- It was suggested a while ago that someone calculate the amount of water required for a global flood which would cover the highest mountains. Most probably the poster knew (as I do) that this calculation is already done in Strahler. But since I don't have Strahler with me, I'm doing the calculation for myself. After I answer the question, I'll go on to calculate the first-order objections to the calculations that creationists including myself would otherwise raise. X-Envelope-to: ST0O@ANDREW.CMU.EDU AMOUNT OF WATER ON THE EARTH TODAY: (EB is Encyclopedia Britannica) Ocean volume: (EB 25:125) 1.37 E09 km^3. Ice cap volume: EB 1:440 3 E08 km^3 of Antarctic ice. Antarctic ice is 90% of all ice, and ice is ..9 the density of water (can be denser under high pressure, but I believe it's a second order effect.) Thus 1.67E09 km^3 of water is available to make a flood. Why no more? Water is massive enough so that it won't make escape velocity, unless pushed to high temperatures. (RMS vel 100 C is 700 m/s, esc. vel is 7000 and some. Thus whatever water was here still is here. AMOUNT OF WATER TO COVER EARTH UNIFORMLY TO A DEPTH r. With earth of radius R=1.2 E 7 m, the volume of water to cover a perfect sphere to depth r above its surface is 4/3 pi *( 3 r * R^2 + 3R* r^2 + r^3). For the cases I will consider, R>>r and only the first term is important. Cover Mt. Everest: (8900 m) 1.6 E10 km^3 of water needed. If oceans were present depth, add an additional 1.37E09. A first-order correction is that we must consider the volume of land mass above sea level. But it's clear there's not enough water to go around. The first Creationist objection would be: How do you know Everest was that high during the flood? All right. Let's take Mt. Ararat (3900 m) which the Bible says the ark landed *on the top of*. For waters that high, 2.78E09 km^3 of extra water is needed. If all this came from forty days and forty nights of rain, this would mean a flow of 821 km^3 per second. Whether from "fountains of the deep or from above, the average precipitation would be 1.1 mm /sec or ~6 cm/minute (assuming uniform depth build-up to 3900 m over the 40 days, not quite correct) From here on creationists must play with the initial conditions. In particular, if someone suggests that all continental drift and most mountain formation happened during the flood, and perhaps the ocean wasn't as deep then as it was now, let's calculate how shallow the ocean would have to be. Take ocean surface area 3.6E8 km^2, mean depth 3.8 km. (now). Reduce ocean depth to 1 km, say. Now only 3.6E8 km^3 of water is needed to fill ocean, rest (1.2E9), is available for flood, enough to flood earth uniformly to a depth of 2.7 km. I won't claim that the above scenario happened. Some will, or variations on a theme of that. Point is, where they are free to use the Bible to pick their initial conditions, they can come up with volumes of water that are at least on the right order of magnitude. So there's the science and speculation. Take it for what it's worth. Share and enjoy,

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank