jmog;1159920 wrote:No it is not, your opinion doesn't make it fact.
Through the plate tectonic simulation it is shown that the mountains before a hypothetical flood would be considered large hills by now, the largest mountain ranges in the world like the Andes, Himalayas, Rockies, etc would have all been formed due to the massive plate tectonic shifts caused by a global flood.
So, not nearly the amount of water needed as you are assuming.
" So we know the average radius of the Earth at sea level is approximately 6371 km (and yes I am aware that Earth is not a perfect sphere but for the purposes of simplicity I think you will agree there is no harm done in modeling it as one). We also know that 29.2% of the Earth is covered by land with a mean height of 840 m. So with a little bit of math we can find the approximate volume of land above sea level by (4/3)π(r2[SUP]3[/SUP] – r1[SUP]3)[/SUP] * (%land) = (4/3) * π[(6,371,840m)[SUP]3[/SUP] – (6,371,000m)[SUP]3][/SUP] * (29.2%) = 1.25 * 10[SUP]17[/SUP] m[SUP]3[/SUP]
Now we also know that the highest point on Earth is Mt. Everest at 8,848 m and according to Genesis, “The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.” (Genesis 7:19-21) Now for all of you folks that don't still measure in cubits, 15 cubit = 6.8 meters. That means that during the flood sea level would have risen to an astounding hight of 8,850 m above sea level. And with a little more math we can see that the amount of water it would take to accomplish that would be
(4/3)π(r2[SUP]3[/SUP] – r1[SUP]3)[/SUP] – Vland = (4/3) * π[(6,379,850m)[SUP]3[/SUP] – (6,371,000m)[SUP]3][/SUP] - 1.25 * 10[SUP]17[/SUP] m[SUP]3[/SUP] = 4.39 * 10[SUP]18[/SUP] m[SUP]3[/SUP]
Now that's a lot of water! Especially considering that this is the amount of water ABOVE sea level would be in addition to the 1.386 * 10[SUP]18[/SUP] m[SUP]3[/SUP] of water already here for a grand total of 5.781 * 10[SUP]18[/SUP] m[SUP]3[/SUP] of water required for the flood of Genesis. Now that's 4.17 times the water on the Earth pre and post flood. Now we all know that mass can be neither created nor destroyed so all that extra water, which by the way comes to a total mass of 4.39 * 10[SUP]21[/SUP] Kg, had to come from somewhere. The only remotely plausible explanation I can think of is that this mass came from the atmosphere but as the atmosphere has a mass of only 5.1 * 10[SUP]18[/SUP] Kg which is around one thousandth of that required, not to mention that it's mostly nitrogen, we can obviously rule it out. No matter how you shake it there just isn't enough free hydrogen or oxygen on our planet to create that much extra water. So I'm sorry religion, but a natural disaster of that proportion is just not plausible."
Your plate tectonic model doesn't account for the reality of the dispersion of fossils, mineral deposits, and plant and animal life nor for the geologic records that we find.
Then there's the whole problem with the fact that there were fucking civiliazations that we know of at the time that didn't all drown to death.
And if any of you hear someone saying that 40 days of food for livestock wouldn't be that hard to stock in a large boat punch them in the throat. Not only would 40 days be incredibly difficult to stock but the flood didn't last 40 days. That's how long the rain lasted :
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%207:4&version=NIV
The flood lasted about a year. (Started 17th day of second month of Noah's 600th year, Ended 1st day of the 1st month of Noah's 601st year).
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%207:11-12&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%208:13-14&version=NIV