Because of the above, you have headed in the wrong direction here, as well.
But then I thought of another temperature problem. The water vapor must condense to water droplets before they can fall as rain. That is a lot of latent heat. (When you boil water, you have to put a lot of heat into the water to convert itto a vapor. When that vapor condenses the same amount of heat is released.) Using the total mass of the atmosphere and the radius of the earth from a NASA website, I calculated that the heat released from enough water to cause only 2 feet of rain to fall on the whole world would release enough raise the temperature of the atmosphere 200 degrees F.
Then why doesn't that happen now? We have a number of places in the world that receive FAR more than that on a yearly basis. During monsoon seasons, Southeast Asia can receive that much in a few days!
So we are left with a world that is completely flooded in boiling floodwaters and an atmosphere on top that is even hotter. I propose that this would not only sterilize the planet of everything in or on the waters but that it also might pose a bit of a problem for those on the Ark.
I think maybe your calculations are a bit wrong?
I have gotten very frustrated with the naturalistic explainations given to try and support the Bible. I once had no doubts at all about the Flood. But I have found that when I read accounts of the Flood such as that referenced above that the explainations seem to make less sense that the problem the writer is trying to address. This is how I think. When I read something like that my inclination is to grab a calculator and a book and check. Maybe it is just the engineer in me. This is also the same case in the Creationism debate. I started as a YEC but without having a factual basis. When I realized that there was conflict between mainstream science and creationism I started digging. And I was really shocked by what I found. Creationist basically talked me out of Creationism. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics line is the one that really set me off questioning and looking at the other arguments more closely. So now I have a ton of questions surrounding both of these topics. I tried for a while to get around it with OEC and such but I cannot find a way to make jive with scripture. And by the same methods those that I find arguing for absolute inerrancy are also now leading towards a view of the Bible closer to inspired but subject to the errors of a human writer.
I have been a bit hesitent to put these feeling out there. To put my head on the chopping block so to speak. This is because when I first started I tried talking to other believers about it and found out very quickly that most get riled very quickly and are unwilling to even discuss the subject civilly and logically. So I have been reduced to dealing with it privately and with prayer.
It's hard when people might accuse you of being a heretic or an unbeliever or whatever. I can understand that. I started off being an evolutionist and then ended up YEC due to science. But it was science I more or less put together myself in some areas. I have to agree with you that the arguments which are popularized by a number of the YEC folk are enough to make one totally cringe.
My husband is Barry Setterfield. We have a website here:
www.setterfield.org
Go into the scientific articles section and check "A Brief Earth History" (I think that is what it is called -- it's one of the first two articles in the science articles section) and see how much sense that makes to you.
We can be reached at
bhs4light@baptistmail.com for any questions you have.
If you email this coming weekend or the week following, please be patient, however, as Barry is having some surgery on Monday and will need time to recuperate.
Thank you.
Helen Setterfield