Summations Only

Let's not forget that it's just a theory that water molecules are comprised of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen - that's not set in stone. It's just as likely that water molecules are comprised of two oxygen atoms that like to lie back and take it easy. When the global flood happened, a few gazillion of them chilled out and took it easy to form the extra water, then afterwards they all got excited and zippy again and headed back into the atmosphere. Simples !It's just a theory that water and oxygen molecules are different - it's also a theory that they're the same. And those clever Greek chaps taught us that abstract philosophizing is just as good as gathering evidence.

It's also worth pointing out that the highest daily rainfall on record in the world is 1,825 mm in 24 hours (which I think we can all agree is one seriously bad day to forget your umbrella).Even assuming the worst rain on record, on every square inch of planet earth, for 40 days and nights, solid, you get to 73 metres of coverage.I know Mindspawn plucked out of the air the assertion that mountains were smaller back in Noah's day, but taking into account the 15 cubit coverage requirement, the highest mountain in the world would have been 66 metres high.And I haven't adjusted downwards for the curvature of the earth, though I'd be prepared to do the maths for giggles.

The evidence for a widespread rise in sea levels is something which everyone here seems to accept. (I'm guessing that tectonic plate movements and/or global temperature cycles leading to ice cap shrinkage are likely culprits, but over to the geologists on that one).Where you don't have a shred of evidence is that humans or any modern animals were around at the time. You have conjecture, sure, but no evidence about that.

Your spectacles are rather rose tinted when it comes to the recovery of a land-based ecosystem after a flood.This is a study of the recovery of the region affected by the 2004 tsunami. Object not found!The results are patchy, because clearly the tsunami had varying degrees and periods of coverage, but you will see that in the worst affected areas, there was zero vegetation recovery one year after the event.And that was being underwater a few days. The biblical flood was 40 days, before the waters even started to recede.The tsunami was a raindrop compared to what a 40 day long global flood would have been. And this study paints a picture of severe long-term damage from such a raindrop.Your idea of grasses growing back within a few weeks, sufficiently to enable sustainable agricultural feeding, is one which sits exceptionally badly with the reality of the devastation which a global flood would have caused.

Are you kidding ? Noah was, like, 950 years old !! Talk about stringy !!

Ooh, even I, as a non-expert, can have a go at this one.Even if we assume that your unevidenced conjecture is correct, and that a global flood (caused in a relatively gentle fashion by constant rainfall, as opposed to the violence of, say, a tsunami) killed off all marine life in the location of the flooding, how the hell does that mean there would be no marine fossils ???This may come as news to you, but I can guarantee to you that before it became a fossil, every single fossil was the dead body of a creature or plant ! They were no more ! They had ceased to be ! They had expired and gone to meet their maker ! They were stiffs ! Bereft of life and resting in peace ! If they hadn't sunk to the bottom they'd be pushing up the daisies ! Their metabolic processes were history ! They were off their current ! They'd kicked the bucket, shuffled off their mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible ! They were ex-plants and animals !!!And just to join up the dots for you - if (and I'm assuming the "if" for argument) a global flood managed to kill all marine life, we would have had an absolute ton of dead marine bodies to form fossils !Being dead does not remove your body, does it ?

Indeed. This is how marine fossils form. Well, once again, we have utterly unevidenced conjecture. But quite apart from that, this isn't what you said in response to Granny Magda's point is it ? There, you said that the flood brought inland with it the non-surviving marine life.Which, as you point out above, would have sunk to the flooded ground. Where some of it would have formed marine fossils.Except there aren't any.

Certainly. Your words were: That is saying that the flood brought inland with it the non-surviving marine life.As for asking for more than conjecture as to where and when the marine life would have died, let me remind you that it was your conjecture in the first place that the marine life died at all in the flooded areas. You go first with the evidence, therefore. I am all ears.

Oh, and whilst we're about it, this is the quotation I gave just now, from your message to Granny Magda: And this is a quotation from your message to me just now: Which way do you want the water travelling - inland, or away from the landmass ?

Really ? I was going on your previous statement: How are you reconciling "MARINE INCURSION" with "water flowing outwards from the landmass" ?

I've had a bit of fun thinking of something else for you to tackle as well.Your contention is that the lack of any marine fossils, as pointed out by Granny Magda, is due to the flooding being largely accounted for by fresh water glacial flow. Your words as follows: I did a bit of twiddling around on google, and it is reckoned that if all of the ice in Antarctica melted, it would raise sea levels by 61 metres, which as I recall is consistent with your odd view that mountains were actually only baby hills, back in the day. So let's run with a melting of ice from Southern Pangea of an amount roughly equal to the amount of ice in Antarctica.It's estimated that there are 27 million billion tons of ice in Antarctica, with an average temperature of -35 degrees Celsius. I think it's reasonable to assume a reasonably similar quantity and temperature of ice, to allow reasonably sufficient flows for your scenario.Now, bearing in mind that you can't use marine water to melt the ice (marine water does a fair job of melting ice, but it would ruin your "no marine water" scenario), would you like to hazard a guess as to how much the air temperature would have to rise on earth, in order to melt 27 million billion tons of ice, with a temperature of -35 degrees, in a period of 40 days ?I don't know the answer myself - I suspect the maths might be complicated - but my guess is that Noah and co would have needed air con.

Surely you appreciate the staggering irony of berating a post for a failure to refer to numbers, and then, in the very next sentence, without even pausing for breath, attempting to refute it by saying "I feel that..."You know, full well, that given a little time to post it, NoNukes, a chap who has actually run a nuclear reactor, will be able to give you any amount of numbers. All of them verified, tested and measured. And available for peer review.On the other hand, despite many, many requests over various posts and threads, you have never been able to show us any numbers at all of your own.As a friend of mine might say - enough irony to put a sharp crease in the Himalayas.