Anti-Neocons

That's true and I wouldn't argue with the fact we need those guidelines. But religion no matter how you slice it is just a construct that's the opposite of freedom. I don't mean spirituality necessarily I mean the definition of 'religion'.

Aetheism is even a type of construct. We can't have people acting out on just how they feel or something like this, but if its all a construct than those same people seem to be given little choice but to act out of feeling.

Give a man a case of medicine and he uses it to poison all his servants, is it the fault of the medicine or the fault of the man who is the healer?

What I'm saying is its the fault of both, you follow a construct that traps you then how can you help but disobey it.

Are we going to discuss the physical possibility of such a flood, or whether it actually has happened?

Indeed we should examine our lives.

Who said: “an unexamined life is not worth living.”

I love that quote. I do not follow science blindly. Atheisms however does not default one to trust in science or any one set of guidelines. Science is a process btw not a set of rules. Atheism: simply means one doesn’t believe in god. I don’t follow any one idea per say, but I do examine the facts and soundness of a claim through the constructs of science, reason and common sense. If it fails on all account, then I do dismiss.

I would like to stay on the physical possibility.

As would I.

In the Islamic tradition (as per the link I gave you), it basically describes a super-monsoon, as well as all the water in the earth coming to the surface flooding everything and the seas overflowing.

With the seas overflowing:

Supposing an earthquake on the sea floor causing it to suddenly rise up, pushing the water onto the land, I'd imagine that would in itself cause massive flooding globally, or am I wrong in that assumption?

You are wrong. It would cause the water (sea) level to raise to a certain degree but as physicists have explained there is no way that the sea would actually swallow up the whole land.

What happened was devastating "flash" floods fairly high above sea level, much like what you see with the Tsunami that hit Asia. This went on for many days even the worst effects of the climate lasted for 7 days and there were certain peoples and certain tribes stricken with disease.

The implication was that these flash floods covered the whole world, that is simply not what happened, there were natural and devastating tsunami like floods over the area where most of Europe/Asia sits today. I think it was possible certain countries were covered in a flood I see science supports that position. I think a man did create an Ark and absolutely did have to flee his land. I do not think, I wouldn't assume, that this flood covered the hemisphere or reached past the equator & was able to cover all of the land because that would defy gravity & geometry.

Thanks for the welcome.

Scientifically it would seem that ocean levels rose about 400ft from the height of the ice-age. Can science determine if the melting was in the form of run-off from the ice itself or how much would have come down in the form of rain? Can science determine how fast/slow the last 20 feet occurred, or more properly how much the oceans would rise if 20 of rain fell over the whole world? Some climate modeling software might be able to show what kind of flooding would occur

I don't have a program that allows me to dump that much water on any given area in that amount of time (a relatively short period) but that is an awful lot of water. That part of the world is fairly flat. The Red River in North America floods every now and then and it does take weeks for that water to finally subside, and that is just a little water compared to 20ft.

One other factor not usually covered is the rainbow. Ge:1 says there was a mist, that could have been the climate, no rain, just a continuous 'fog'. That would be more than enough moisture to support life as we know it.
How would a person go about checking that idea out?

Now if you really wanted the flood to be under God's influence that 20 feet could have just piled up, rain with no run-off. Certainly no way to verify that but if He stopped the sun in the sky for a portion of the day then it is not beyond His power. But rather than take that route, I would go with 20 ft of rain in 40 days as qualifying as the flood, without the water having to be level (and then some) at the height of Everest .

Another scientific aspect is could the Ark float on that depth of water? I don't have that kind of software either.

Hypothetically speaking, if the ocean and sea floors rose a mile, how much land would that displaced water submerge?



I don't think it would have literally covered everything either. However, as the story goes, it would've covered just enough of everything to wipe out all of mankind at the time, except for those on-board the ark. Obviously, it wouldn't need to cover everything to do that, especially if mankind hadn't even spread throughout the entire globe at that time.