"The Whole Silly Flood Story"

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Great post!

I think you'll appreciate this- abovetopsecret.com... and for anybody else, you might learn something!...

Huh, it's funny. The discussion of this topic has been abandoned even though there are plenty of individuals who subscribe to the flood story as literal, factual truth...huh.

I mean, it's not that I want to deal with more people ignoring me, I just thought that there was a better argument than "THE BIBLE SAYS SO!"

Of course the flood story is true.
The waters covered the whole world, and only two children survived. They climbed to the top of a very tall tree. The rainbow snake imparted this knowledge to my people. I learnt about it as a child, and science supports it and my myths are scientifically correct so I'm not going to talk about it any more. Discussion is closed.



There are a few other Australian flood myths up on creationist sites.

During the Dreamtime flood, woramba, the Ark Gumana carrying Noah, Aborigines, and animals, drifted south and came to rest in the flood plain of Djilinbadu (about 70 km south of Noonkanbah Station, just south of the Barbwire Range and east of the Worral Range), where it can still be seen today. The white man's claim that it landed in the Middle East was a lie to keep Aborigines in subservience.
library.thinkquest.org...

This one is quite a recent story, said to be part of an effort on the part of the elders to stop the youngfolk of the tribe taking up the beliefs of the missionaries.
The missionaries were answering a non-existant need, offering the natives easy food and sugar, but making them pay by wearing cast-off whitefolk clothing, cutting them off from their communities and traditions, and making virtual slaves of them.

The Flood
(As told by Albert Barangga)

In ancient times the sea made the watermarks on the mountains and ranges. For example Mt. House, Mt. Waterloo, Mt. Hann all have these watermarks, they are right on top. The reason for this flood was men killed the old woman’s third son, the one she loved.

This old lady went down and speared the ‘eye’ of the sea. It is said that she was staying on Nowulu Island. The son was dear to her. They told her “They have killed him; already they have taken his life”, they told her. “Ah”, she said. She wept once and did not weep again. “I’ll finish them” she said. She went over to a place called Garajin and there she speared and poked the small ‘hole’ in the sea. The sea went back and back exceedingly, it sucked it right out. The place was left hard and dry and the fish were flapping about on the hard (bottom) place for there was no water. At that time the mountains were made.

We say, the present tides don’t rise like this. For this sea travelled across like a range to them. The mountains sank beneath it. Then she finished them. They were drowned. While still there was no water, that is at the time when it disappeared, she picked up turtle and fish and took them up to the top of the hill at Nowulu The place is called Nowulu, it’s an island, that the place she climbed up to. Here she remained and dug for water right on the top Then that one - the sea - was travelling and all the mainland was underneath it. That was the time it went back. That time it finished them; it drowned all those men. Only those who climbed right on top, over there, only those may be living. Then they returned this way. that was the sea that drowned all the men of that generation on the earth. Then (that time) they made themselves into turtle and fish and now those of that generation are living creatures in the sea. They were people first but they made themselves sea- creatures. The sea drowned them all.

There are two interesting things in this story.
The first is the accurate picture it draws of a tsunami.
There is another type of evolution we haven't been looking at here, and that's cultural evolution.
The traditional stories of a tribe could contain useful knowledge and warnings, which could help the tribe to survive. Much knowledge was embedded in the Australian stories of which plants were edible, where to find them and when. This story taught a warning that, when the sea-waters suddenly draw back, you must run for high ground.

The other point of note is the sentence ; "At that time the mountains were made."
You just can't trust a creationist to be honest when a "lie for god" suits him better.
This line does not jibe at all with the section that follows:
"For this sea travelled across like a range to them. The mountains sank beneath it."
The sea looked like a mountain range to people who had never seen a mountain?
The mountains sank under the water before there were mountains?

Obviously the line about mountains being made does not belong. I suspect it was added to provide support for the theory that the earth was smooth until the flood and god suddenly made mountains during the flood.


These myths illustrate the fact that ancient myths generally had a purpose, and we can't understand the myth until we understand its purpose.

The bible (O.T.) was put together by the priests in a theocracy. If there is one thing that people in power want, right through place and time, it's more power. To consolidate what power they had it was important to draw the Hebrews together in one unit, make them proud to be Hebrews, make them willing to fight and kill on demand, make them repect and fear the priests and their "god", and make the rest of the world respect and fear the Hebrews.

To this purpose myth, history and make-believe were entwined to create a narrative with which the Hebrews could identify.

personanly i dont beleif the bible in it literal form. However there is truth in it. I dont have any need to knock anyone elses beliefs.. What makes you so sure of your own...

kx

reply to post by MrXYZ

Either way, how does any of that prove god's existence or a global flood???

Well I never implied it was proof of either, but to ancient peoples this is how they saw the events, and in those days possibly it seemed like the whole world was affected.

reply to post by Kailassa



I remember that story, do you remember a story of gods being above them in ships?

Originally posted by purplemer
personanly i dont beleif the bible in it literal form.

Well, bully for you.

However there is truth in it.

It does paint a rather vivid picture of what complete jerks human beings can be, doesn't it?

I dont have any need to knock anyone elses beliefs..

Think of it this way; if I write a script for a movie, and keep it locked in a drawer, it's my script, my work, and frankly none of your business. if I sell the script and it gets made into a movie... Well, it's now up for public consumption and criticism. And if my movie is about a magical unicorn who makes friends with a psychic dog, and they join the LAPD to fight a midget werewolf crime ring?

I can't just tell the critics that it's my movie and they can't say anything, after I've put it out to the public!

Your beliefs work the same way. When they're just yours, hey, that's fine. Believe in your ur-Gnome who created the universe by copulating with the cosmic satsuma, if you want. But the moment you stand up and decree that Satsumism is a valid life philosophy that others should follow, it is now open to inspection and criticism.

I don't buy food without checking the labels and inspecting the competition and looking at the price. And I need food. Your entirely-optional belief system deserves no less - and probably deserves more - critical thought than a box of triscuits.

What makes you so sure of your own...

Mostly evidence.

The Bible is full of nonsense compilation of textallegories and metaphors peculiar philosophical comparisons without any proof of the authors and a lot of airy fairy stories handed down for centuries that are meant to be factual I believe they have been seriously misinterpreted, misrepresented by primitive and superstitious and ancient civilisations.Sadly there are those indoctrinated from such and early age and to the point that they are unwilling to see logic and blindly accept anything their religion tells them as irrefutable fact.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Kailassa

 

I remember that story, do you remember a story of gods being above them in ships?

Which of the stories is the one you remember, and where from?

No, I don't know of any story of gods being above them in ships.
Would you like to tell me more about it?

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Kailassa

 

I remember that story, do you remember a story of gods being above them in ships?

Which of the stories is the one you remember, and where from?

No, I don't know of any story of gods being above them in ships.
Would you like to tell me more about it?

It was an Australian flood myth story I found on line a long time ago, and have looked for but never been able to find again, Interestingly the Sumerian flood epic has the gods watching from above too, I believe.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Logical Analysis of the Flood Story

the article points out many fatal flaws with the literalist biblical flood story, including my favorite:

Gonorrhea

It doesn't really matter whether God, provided we theoretically assume that he exists, bestowed the gift to Adam or Eve. Could have been easily none. Later when people got really into heavy stuff sinning God may have introduced the disease as punishment. Same with Noah and the Flood myth, God may well have reintroduced the disease as punishment for excessive sinning.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and then there's the population arguement:

Ted Krapkat has improved upon my argument by applying the creationist logic directly to the human population:

yeah... those are just the hilarious holes in the flood "theory"

I don't fancy checking the math and the numbers, because it's a silly argument anyway. Modern day science tells us Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the whole worldwide flood myth is bunk IMHO, because: while there is ample evidence of local floods all over the world in various mythologies and oral traditions, there is no evidence of a worldwide flood as described in Genesis. The whole Noah myth is believed to be based on a Sumerian myth, which in turn is considered to be based on local floods of the two rivers that flow through Mesopotamia.

Ridiculing the flood story in this way is as idiotic as the flood story itself. Extrapolating population numbers from the myth is laughable. It's completely a straw man argument. To conclude that this specific myth is wrong, therefore a flood couldn't have happened is as backward in its thinking as any creationist claim that it represents something that literally happened as stated in the Bible. No Christian or Jew I know believes in the literal ark & flood story. It's a metaphor for creation. It's symbolic. Do you believe that the tomb in the Garden of Gesthemene in Jerusalem near Golgotha (now presidng over a tourist bus parking lot) is ACTUALLY the tomb of Jesus Christ? It's the right time. It's the right place. It's exactly as described in the gospels, but is it THE place? We'll never know, but even if it NEVER happened, it's the symbolic place, the traditional place (one of several competing places, the most famous being inside the Church of the Holy Sephulcre). In other words, it doesn't matter if it really isn't the place and it doesn't matter if the ark & flood story never happened. That's irrelevant.

But the question of a flood happening worldwide is a totally different issue, and there is every reason to believe that it did. Not only is the flood myth, in all its many variations, pervasive in mythology all over the world, discoveries of underwater structures from Japan to India all point to a severe sea level rise a few thousand years ago. All you have to do is look at the scientific record. What happened 12,000 years ago?

The most recent Ice Age began to lose its grip on the world. We've had about 12,000 years of global warming which started way back then before SUVs were blamed for it. Now look in any scientific textbook on ice ages to find out what happened to global sea levels during the Ice Age. For one thing, it sucked up enough water into ice that a land bridge was created between Asia and North America. Voila: "Native" Americans came to the western hemisphere over this land bridge. DNA proves it well enough.

Now take a look at a map of North America. You see that big round bay in north Canada? Hudson Bay. What do you think that big round strucure is? It's a very old meteor or asteroid strike. When the Ice Age began to give way, the ice covering Hudson Bay melted into a great big pool--held in place by the ice on land surrounding it which had not yet melted--just like the ice on the shore of lake Michigan during winter is way higher than Lake Michigan's level itself.

This resulted in a large ice dam surrounding what was then a very full Hudson Bay. And when the ice dam broke th sea level all over the world went up 60 feet in a matter of hours. And whatever civilizations existed around the world, probably iron age at best civilizations, maybe pre-renaissance cultures in Japan and India and even Mesopotamia, suddenly lost a great part of their seashore based populations.

THAT'S where the flood stories come from. In a pre-literate society they didn't write it down like Pliny the Eklder wrote about the destruction of Pompeii. They incorporated it into their mythology in an attempt to keep the story alive, and like all such stories enduring thousands of years, it reverted to a very basic truth, enbellished with ritual and myth, down to the present day. The ark never happened, but the Flood did and the Bible is just trying to tell the story as best it can.

You guys will throw the baby out with the bathwater every time on this stuff. You are so fixated on 'fact' that you miss the whole point.

(PS Please forgive my spelling. I'm having trouble with my vision and can barely see the print.)

There are plenty of people who believe the literal Biblical flood myth. This thread dispels the Biblical flood myth itself. It's not a straw man, because people actually believe it.

A straw man would be "Evolutionists say that we evolved from chimpanzees!" - Evolutionary scientists don't actually claim that. However, in the case of the Biblical flood myth, there are indeed people who believe that it literally happened.

reply to post by schuyler


It also helps that every "flood myth" we have was collected after prolonged contact with Christian missionaries. You can't exactly go back and say "the Aborigines have a flood myth! The Cherokee have a flood myth! The !Kung have a flood myth!" as if this is definitive of something.

Originally posted by schuyler
Ridiculing the flood story in this way is as idiotic as the flood story itself. . . . To conclude that this specific myth is wrong, therefore a flood couldn't have happened is as backward in its thinking as any creationist claim that it represents something that literally happened as stated in the Bible.

No-one is saying a flood didn't happen. Of course floods happen, and some are catastrophic.
However when people are using the bible as a scientific text-book, in order to disprove evolution, it has to be pointed out to them that the bible is not a scientific text-book.

Some Christians are believing ridiculous things, such as there being a huge mantle of liquid water or solid ice surrounding the earth, providing the water for the flood, and believing all the mountains and chasms on earth were created during that biblical 40-day flood period. - And when you combine that with all fauna on earth being wiped out apart from that which was on the ark - well really, the idea gets ridiculed because it is patently ridiculous.

No Christian or Jew I know believes in the literal ark & flood story.

Jews and most Christians do not take the biblical flood story literally, no. But we are discussing it here with those who do take it seriously.

But the question of a flood happening worldwide is a totally different issue, and there is every reason to believe that it did. Not only is the flood myth, in all its many variations, pervasive in mythology all over the world, discoveries of underwater structures from Japan to India all point to a severe sea level rise a few thousand years ago.

Flood myths are not evidence for a world-wide flood; they are evidence for many local floods.
Flooded underwater structures are only evidence of subsidence or a gradual rise in sea-level.

All you have to do is look at the scientific record. What happened 12,000 years ago?
The most recent Ice Age began to lose its grip on the world. We've had about 12,000 years of global warming which started way back then before SUVs were blamed for it. Now look in any scientific textbook on ice ages to find out what happened to global sea levels during the Ice Age. For one thing, it sucked up enough water into ice that a land bridge was created between Asia and North America. Voila: "Native" Americans came to the western hemisphere over this land bridge. DNA proves it well enough.

Now take a look at a map of North America. You see that big round bay in north Canada? Hudson Bay. What do you think that big round strucure is? It's a very old meteor or asteroid strike. When the Ice Age began to give way, the ice covering Hudson Bay melted into a great big pool--held in place by the ice on land surrounding it which had not yet melted--just like the ice on the shore of lake Michigan during winter is way higher than Lake Michigan's level itself.

This resulted in a large ice dam surrounding what was then a very full Hudson Bay. And when the ice dam broke th sea level all over the world went up 60 feet in a matter of hours. And whatever civilizations existed around the world, probably iron age at best civilizations, maybe pre-renaissance cultures in Japan and India and even Mesopotamia, suddenly lost a great part of their seashore based populations.

Sources please. My information is that this event caused severe local flooding a bit over 8,000 years ago, but worldwide only caused a rise of 1 - 4 metres in ocean levels.

You guys will throw the baby out with the bathwater every time on this stuff. You are so fixated on 'fact' that you miss the whole point.

Are you averse to the investigation of facts when they contradict your world view? Or do you have some other reason for disliking people being "fixated on facts"?

One particularly major biological issue I have with the "whole earth flood" concept is the separate groups of freshwater and saltwater fish (and other organisms that are much less interesting to me). Most f/water fish cannot survive for long in s/water, and vice-versa (although exceptions, particularly sticklebacks, poecilid mollies, and bull sharks, do exist), and most die readily in brackish water, too. Even overlooking the fact that the pure H2O of enough rain to cover the earth would wipe out all aquatic organisms staying in it for 40 days and nights, either one or the other - of, if it became brackish - both (non-phylogenetic) groups of fish would have been pretty much wiped out. Which they haven't been. So is Noah supposed to have had a really big fish-tank on board - in which case, how did he collect all the sea-creatures? And if he DID manage to keep them all on-board, how come the aquarium industry only really took off in the west in the Victorian era?

Oh, and for the person that talked about finding the sea urchin fossil way inland: you do know that sea-urchins don't swim, and aren't particularly fast moving? So how did such sedentary animals move the great distances required to fossilise in their current locations, far from the sea, within the forty-day timescale?


reply to post by schuyler


Uh, sixty feet all over the world in a matter of hours? Isn't that a tad on the optimistic side for a Hudson Bay sized reservoir of water? Because (based on the most accessible data for volume of ice in Antartica + surface area of the world) melting the WHOLE of Antartica, not allowing for the fact that a (very) good deal of ice is already resting on displacing water and so melting it would have no effect on sea level, we'd have just enough water to give the world a nice 180 foot water-blankie (or, if just working on current sea area, a 270 foot rise in sea level). Antartica is more than three (or four and a half)times the size of hudson bay, I think.

(NB - for any young earth creationists about to jump on this post, please try to keep in mind that a 180 foot water blankie wouldn't reach particularly far past a lot of shorelines. A couple of them, yes, but not many)

PS - I will admit that I thought it would be a smaller rise than that when I started this reply bit. But it still seems optimistic for Hudson bay to give the whole world a sixty-foot rise in sea-level. A meteor impact to produce a tsunami of 60 or so foot seems more plausible, really. Also, do take into account that the actual value would be smaller, because a lot of the antartic ice is already supported by water and thus would not, if melting, lead to a rise in sea level.

reply to post by schuyler

Originally posted by schuyler
Ridiculing the flood story in this way is as idiotic as the flood story itself.

Not really, especially when there are people on here that actually subscribe to it as actual fact.

Extrapolating population numbers from the myth is laughable. It's completely a straw man argument.

...I'm not going to defend the source I cited. I was younger, less rigorous in my explorations.

Of course, it isn't really laughable when some people take it as fact. And it's not a straw man. A straw man would be saying something that has nothing to do with what the Bible says.

To conclude that this specific myth is wrong, therefore a flood couldn't have happened is as backward in its thinking as any creationist claim that it represents something that literally happened as stated in the Bible.

Actually, the conclusion is that the flood as described in the Bible couldn't have happened as described by the Bible.
The reason a global flood couldn't have happened is because it's physically impossible.

Also, floods happen, just never on that scale.

No Christian or Jew I know believes in the literal ark & flood story.

I can provide links to people claiming that it is literal fact here on ATS. It's actually why I bumped this thread in the first place.

It's a metaphor for creation. It's symbolic.

No, it's a metaphor for "Stop doing that stuff or god is going to drown you all...except he's not too mean so he's going to save the nicest guy, his family, and some animals"

Do you believe that the tomb in the Garden of Gesthemene in Jerusalem near Golgotha (now presidng over a tourist bus parking lot) is ACTUALLY the tomb of Jesus Christ? It's the right time. It's the right place. It's exactly as described in the gospels, but is it THE place? We'll never know, but even if it NEVER happened, it's the symbolic place, the traditional place (one of several competing places, the most famous being inside the Church of the Holy Sephulcre).

Um...not the point of this. The main point is that a global flood is impossible. A flood as described by Genesis is far more impossible.

In other words, it doesn't matter if it really isn't the place and it doesn't matter if the ark & flood story never happened. That's irrelevant.

True, but there are others on here that seem to care.

But the question of a flood happening worldwide is a totally different issue, and there is every reason to believe that it did.

...well, of course that's a separate issue. It's an issue that it could not have happened

Not only is the flood myth, in all its many variations, pervasive in mythology all over the world,

...all sorts of myths are pervasive in world mythology. Read "The Hero With A Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell.

discoveries of underwater structures from Japan to India all point to a severe sea level rise a few thousand years ago.

...except that it doesn't. It points to isolated cases of changes in sea level. Those two findings don't even relate to each other, they relate to isolated incidents.

All you have to do is look at the scientific record. What happened 12,000 years ago?

Ugh...

The most recent Ice Age began to lose its grip on the world.

"Ice Age" doesn't mean that everywhere was covered in ice and snow. It was just really cold

We've had about 12,000 years of global warming which started way back then before SUVs were blamed for it.

This is why I said "Ugh"
We actually can track global climate by tree-ring studies. We know that global climate has fluctuated, not seen a steady, 12000 year increase.

Now look in any scientific textbook on ice ages to find out what happened to global sea levels during the Ice Age.

It was cold, land bridges formed in certain areas due to interruption in the water cycle, mammoths were shaggy, etc

For one thing, it sucked up enough water into ice that a land bridge was created between Asia and North America. Voila: "Native" Americans came to the western hemisphere over this land bridge. DNA proves it well enough.

This is getting to be an awfully long bit on something that isn't related to flooding...
Or is it just really roundabout?

Now take a look at a map of North America. You see that big round bay in north Canada? Hudson Bay. What do you think that big round strucure is? It's a very old meteor or asteroid strike. When the Ice Age began to give way, the ice covering Hudson Bay melted into a great big pool--held in place by the ice on land surrounding it which had not yet melted--just like the ice on the shore of lake Michigan during winter is way higher than Lake Michigan's level itself.

In the words of Wikipedia:

[citation needed

Not that I'm saying you're wrong, I'd just like to see a source.

[quite[
This resulted in a large ice dam surrounding what was then a very full Hudson Bay. And when the ice dam broke th sea level all over the world went up 60 feet in a matter of hours. And whatever civilizations existed around the world, probably iron age at best civilizations, maybe pre-renaissance cultures in Japan and India and even Mesopotamia, suddenly lost a great part of their seashore based populations.


...seriously? Pre-renaissance civilization in the ice age?
As someone who studied archeology and almost went into the field, I have to say this is the most laughable assertion I've heard on here.

They were stone age civilizations. Seriously. How could a pre-renaissance level civilization arise during a period of desolation?

Hell, where is any evidence for this?

THAT'S where the flood stories come from.

And there is no geological evidence to support any claim you just made. Hell, there isn't any evidence of anything.

In a pre-literate society they didn't write it down like Pliny the Eklder wrote about the destruction of Pompeii.

...so they advanced to iron age and pre-renaissance levels without writing?
The best you can get is maybe bronze age without writing. The most advanced pre-literate societies being those of the pre-colonial Americas.

They incorporated it into their mythology in an attempt to keep the story alive, and like all such stories enduring thousands of years, it reverted to a very basic truth, enbellished with ritual and myth, down to the present day. The ark never happened, but the Flood did and the Bible is just trying to tell the story as best it can.

...except that...no. It doesn't make any sense at all. So it's not a global flood, it happened in Japan and India, the civilizations were lost, yet somehow people managed to spread it by word of mouth to everywhere?

I'm sorry, but now I'm outright skeptical of the whole claim.

You guys will throw the baby out with the bathwater every time on this stuff. You are so fixated on 'fact' that you miss the whole point.

I'm fixated on evidence, here it is entirely lacking for the claims of the Bible and any claims of cataclysmic flood.

(PS Please forgive my spelling. I'm having trouble with my vision and can barely see the print.)

I recommend using the following command: (ctrl +) That is ctrl and + at the same time. It should zoom in on your browser to make things easier on your eyes.

reply to post by Kailassa

It's scientifically impossible to have a situation where you can cover the entirety of the world, including the peak of mount Everest, in water for any period of time without the entire world still being flooded.

Please explain how plate tectonics causes a large volume of water to disappear.

It doesn't.

But it explains how a mountain gets that high afterward.

What causes plate tectonics?

Volcanic activity and perhaps pressure from the oceans?


reply to post by madnessinmysoul

...yes, there is quite a bit of water under the Earth's surface. In fact, we can quantify it....but it's still nowhere near enough to envelop the Earth in water.

How Much Water Is There On The Earth?

Ever notice how elevation is based on it's relation to sea level?

he mass of the oceans is approximately 1.35 × 1018 metric tons, or about 1/4400 of the total mass of the Earth. The oceans cover an area of 361.8 × 106 km2 with a mean depth of 3,682 m, resulting in an estimated volume of 1.332 × 109 km3.[96] If all the land on Earth were spread evenly, water would rise to an altitude of more than 2.7 km

Earth

Actually, all the elevated land could be hidden under the oceans and the Earth reduced to a smooth sphere that would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres deep. This is known as the sphere depth of the oceans and serves to underscore the abundance of water on the Earth’s surface.

Encyclopedia Britannica


Sphere depth.

What do you think?

reply to post by dusty1

Originally posted by dusty1
It doesn't.

But it explains how a mountain gets that high afterward.

...no, plate tectonics doesn't create a situation where mountains can suddenly get really tall. Unless they're volcanic, but there's no evidence of the Himalayas being even slightly volcanic.

What causes plate tectonics?

....seriously?

Volcanic activity and perhaps pressure from the oceans?

....seriously?
Would it have taken that much effort to go to wikipedia to get a cursory knowledge of the subject?

It's the movement of the lithosphere on the mantle...

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

...yes, there is quite a bit of water under the Earth's surface. In fact, we can quantify it....but it's still nowhere near enough to envelop the Earth in water.

How Much Water Is There On The Earth?

Ever notice how elevation is based on it's relation to sea level?

Yes....obviously....but again, not enough water to account for the coverage of the whole world....

he mass of the oceans is approximately 1.35 × 1018 metric tons, or about 1/4400 of the total mass of the Earth. The oceans cover an area of 361.8 × 106 km2 with a mean depth of 3,682 m, resulting in an estimated volume of 1.332 × 109 km3.[96] If all the land on Earth were spread evenly, water would rise to an altitude of more than 2.7 km

Earth

Actually, all the elevated land could be hidden under the oceans and the Earth reduced to a smooth sphere that would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres deep. This is known as the sphere depth of the oceans and serves to underscore the abundance of water on the Earth’s surface.

Encyclopedia Britannica


Sphere depth.

What do you think?

Um...seriously? Yes, if you lower the '0 above sea level' parts of the Earth down to the level of the Ocean floor, you'd be able to cover the whole Earth...but that's crazy. There'd be evidence that all the land on Earth was once below the surface of the oceans.

Again, if there is enough water to uniformly cover a system then that system will remain uniformly covered in water unless that water is taken out of the system.

Nothing in plate tectonics allows for the thousands of meters of change required for this situation.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

..yes, there is quite a bit of water under the Earth's surface. In fact, we can quantify it....but it's still nowhere near enough to envelop the Earth in water.

the elevated land could be hidden under the oceans and the Earth reduced to a smooth sphere that would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres deep. This is known as the sphere depth of the oceans and serves to underscore the abundance of water on the Earth’s surface.

Sphere depth of the ocean

Um...the Encyclopedia Britannica did quantify it.

There is enough ocean water to cover the earth.

You don't have to like it.