This I agree with, but I was talking about a post-deluvian atmospheric disruption that would account for more or less water on earth (also in the atmosphere) than there is today. I don't see any support for this anywhere.
The flood itself was a major atmospheric disruption
I do not feel that more or less water is required than we have today. This is not a point of contention.Why? As I showed there is only enough water on the planet to raise current sea level by about 60 feet or so. Do you believe that the earth was such that the highest point was 60 feet above current sea level? Or, do you think I am wrong with the amout of water on earth? If the later, why?
I do believe there is plenty of water on the planet to have completely covered every piece of land
I again do not feel you are wrong with the amount of water on earth. I do not think that current sea level is relevant until we use it as a part of our formula but not the sum. Let us observe where current water is stored and how various the quantities. There are five major places that I can think of. 1. The oceans 2. Lakes and streams (surface water above sea level) 3. Atmospheric (clouds, higher altitude vapor) 4. Subterrainian (aquifers, wells etc) 5. Subcontinental (is that the correct word?) beneath the earth's plates.
If we assume that appx 4500 years ago all of these water tanks held the same relative volumes that they do today then I would have a very hard time standing firmly with this position. I personally believe that two of these five "tanks" held the majority of the water pre-flood. Upper atmospheric vapor and sub-continental resivoir. These are the two I believe were referred to when "The windows of heaven were opened" and "The fountains of the great deep were broken up" taken from Gen 7:11.
I do believe that there is overwhelming evidence for these two resevoirs being released into our visible environment and will give examples in a future post. I also believe that these were the cause of tectonic catastrophy and we are now witnessing the entropic results of that initial extreem movement.
currently our atmosphere can not contain 40 days and nights worth of rain at least not globally and incessantly
I am not sure this bears on the discussion. We would be concerned with pre-deluvian atmospheric conditions, not today's. I think the discussion logically revolves around total water content and elevation today, as these are very unlikely to change very much in the past 4500 years or so. Even with the "upheaval" and the concept that plate tectonics didn't operate pre-flood (which I really feel is unlikely as there is zero evidence for this concept and plenty against it), the earth's water content can't have changed that much, as it's a closed system. We'd have to assume massive amounts of water loss into space and again, there is zero evidence for this and plenty against.
It is not necessary to assume anything, but we must logically address points one at a time and be reasonable in our view of both sides, lest we become too proud and "thinking ourselves wise become fools". I have been guilty of this before and hope to remain reasonable and humble in my study and dissection of things greater than I.Do you believe the Bible is complete and infallable? I only ask because I would dispute this and I think it bears on the discussion. the Bible is incomplete even within its own reference and contradicts itself in several places. That doesn't mean it's not the word of God to Man, but I think some things in the Bible as we know it are untrue. This leaves open the possibility for some of the stories to be incomplete through ancient misunderstanding or later mistranslation. It also allows for later interpretations to be inserted into the text by translators to make stories "fit" into their though paradigm. Do you agree those possibilities exist?
I am just trying to get the people who don't believe the Bible is inspired by GOD to look at the science and demand some answers.
I do believe the Bible is the Word of God and that HE has done a wonderful job of keeping his word through the ages. As far as the Bible being incomplete within it's own reference I agree that there are references that are not in the Bible but they are references given to OUTSIDE material that was not Divinely inspired scripture and certainly appropriate to the reader of the time to verify factual data in order to preserve the actual Word that was given. When an Encyclopedia references material it does not include it, neither does a scientist or writer.
The many contradictions that you refer to need to be addressed one by one because I disagree wholeheartedly and I think for the purposes of this discussion that would be a rabbit trail to take us away from the discussion of the flood. I would cherish the opportunity to take that debate as a new topic after we complete this one.