Polar ice caps and possible rise in sea level

You can get a reasonable estimate yourself.1) Look up the area of antarctica (it has about 90% of the ice)
2) assume a depth of ice that is reasonable (I think 2km is it)
3) determine that volume, convert it to water
4) spread that over the 3/4 of the earth that is oceanThis does give you around the 60 m raise if I remember correctly.It ignores the difference in volume between water and ice. It ignores the compression of the water with increased depth.

You don't have a theory. You have unfounded speculation. You need to show that your suggestions are reasonable.You haven't even described exactly what you mean. At various times some have described high altitude sea shell fossils as being deposited by the flood.Now you have an idea that makes it impossible for anything at all to be deposited. The vague picture you paint of torrential rains running of steep mountaint sides yet somehow "piling up" to make it be a "flood" wouldn't allow for anything.Have you calculated the volume of water per square meter? Have you calculated how fast that will move off the side of a mountain at various inclinations?At the least, without the math, can you describe what you think it would have looked like?Is this the theory you are talking about? You continue to astonish with just how little you know but how much you are willing to throw around.

Read what RR has posted. He is actually making progress on sussing this out even though he starts from total ignorance. (ok, maybe I'm reading too much in there, but let's be patient).You have, I think, made a mistake though. RR may get the idea that this problem has something to do with modern physics when it is on the leading edge of the science centuries ago.

Let's see if I have it all. Maybe you can fill in anything I've missed.You say that it rained so hard that the water could not run off fast enough so it "piled up" in some way on the sides of mountains. This means that the flood "covered" the whole earth for the duration of the 40 days of rain. That is all that I recall you trying to say.Is there more? There is a huge amount of data that this can not explain. You may start with the sea shells which many creationists say is evidence for the flood being over the top of the mountains. So you should really go and argue with them to get your speculation accepted. Yes, I am saying that. Will you either explain how they got there under the conditions you are describing or retract this latest speculation.I don't have to come up with another way that they got there. That was done decades ago by others. No, they will not produce, or you haven't described how they could produce, what we actually see when examining the geological record. To do this you first have to learn what the geology shows us then and only then figure out an alternative explanation for how it got that way. Then figure it out. You don't have a 'theory' if you don't do the calculations to show what would happen. You may start by calculating the rate of arrival of water on a mountain side, determing how fast gravity can move it off and by doing so determine the depth of water at each elevation down the mountain.Then, if you want a 'theory', you would suggest what kind of specific evidence this would leave on all the high mountains of the world that could be looked for to check your hypothosis.Since you haven't done any of that you have nothing. The fact that you think you have is enough to engender significant disrepect of your abilities. I'm not the one who thinks they can contribute anything by making stuff up and not thinking it through.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-21-2004 02:36 AM

Exactly. And this is far more than speculation.If you'd like to discuss sea shells some more, say so, and I'll start a thread (I thought I had actually but it ain't there).