Did the Flood really happen?

What has this got to do with a flood?Your flood couldn't have been billions or even millions of years ago, people have only been around as modern H.sapiens for at most 200,000 years and your book has the flood only a few thousand years ago so what is the relevance of all this?

I am talking about the possibility of the global flood. I do not care about other noises. Do you agree that the global flood, at some time in the earth history, is a possibility?If you agree, I will then, talk about Noah.

I am not a trained geologist, but l think broadly speaking Juvenissun is correct. A large part of Eastern Australia was added in the last 700,000,000 years from subduction related volcanism, granite formation, pressure related changes.
Gondwanaland break-up was later than that.
When India was approaching Asia it plowed up some of the sea bed to add to it, but also folded up rocks to decrease the area a bit.Near-coastal volcanism can add area by lava flows. I expect coastal erosion works the other way.

The province I am in on the western edge of Canada is very nearly 100 % additions made as North America plowed westward. That means I'm on "new" continent from about the last 100 megayears.

There has never been a global flood - ie a time when all the above water land mass on earth was quickly covered with water then uncovered again.There is some evidence that 3bn years ago most of the earth might have been covered in water, probably with small islands pushing through. The evidence is sparse and requires a lot of further work, but it's an interesting finding.That is not a flood, it's a waterworld and it's irrelevant to your biblical flood story. It doesn't matter what you care about, if you're going to attempt to show that there has been a global flood as written in your bible you're going to have to present the complete case not a tiny bit that you 'care about'.

Erosion on land does not decrease the continental mass. It actually make the continent wider (at the cost of becoming lower).

At this stage, you either talk about the global flood, or you talk about Noah. Either one of them is complicated enough. To mix them, anyone would quickly get lost unless you can simply deny the whole thing (if so, you should not be here)OK, a water world, would all the questions about the global flood still be the same? Source of water? Basin of water? You can not run away from the problems just by changing the terms.

I did specify COASTAL erosion such as shown in the coast of Victoria Australia where the limestone is eroded away to produce the Twelve Apostles and other formations.
This is decreasing the area, albeit slowly and by a small amount.Also l remembered Zealandia which is submerged continental crust between Australia and New Zealand and which was formerly attached to Gondwana.

Neither are complicated and they are the same thing - Noah's flood IS the global flood that you're not talking about. We're not mixing anything, are you or are you not talking about Noah's flood? We're very used to talking about the flood, there's endless threads on it - just get on with it, you'll find us quite capable of keeping up with you so long as you don't carry on obfuscating like this. First, the idea of a water world is not yet established, second those that are proposing it are not suggesting that the entire world was submerged, they imagine many islands - micro-continents - above the water. Third, as far as we know, the continent of Gwandano rose from the oceans as the earth's core cooled about half a billion years ago.There is no flood here nor anything in the supposed timescales of your flood.

Coastal reef can be counted as a part of the continent IF it eventually becomes a limestone strata. Overall, carbonate rock is not really a permanent residence of a continent.

This is a very ignorant statement.

Different places have different actual ages.And no, I don't see what the age of a place has to do with the possibility of a flood, especially a worldwide flood. How easy it is to flood a continent depends on the height as well as the area (assuming we want to cover all of the land). But that depends on how high the highest land is, not on the size of the continents.

In general, the smaller the continent, the lower (above the sea level) the continent. Some oceanic islands may look like exceptions. But an oceanic island is not a continent.The lower the continent, the easier to get overrun by seawater. Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.

We're talking about the Biblical Flood here. If a flood was possible long before there were people on earth, that is not relevant to this discussion.

That's irrelevant. For the Biblical Flood to happen, the highest point on earth has to be covered, no matter what continent it's on.