Think about it when you said sea level rising..
...because in a global flood...there are would be NO Artic or Antarctica ice continents!! How high would the sea level be then?
Well, you needn't insinuate that it
might be high enough to cover the highest mountains, and hope that you aren't embarassingly wrong. Because these days, you can just google the result:
google said:
If all the land ice on Earth melted, global sea levels would rise by approximately
66 to 70 meters (about 216 to 230 feet), according to the
U.S. Geological Survey. [
1,
2]
70 metres is a touch less than:
google said:
Mount Everest has an official elevation of 8,848.86 meters (29,031.7 feet) above sea level, as jointly declared by Nepal and China in December 2020.
Thereby demonstrating beyond a doubt that you are embarrasingly wrong, and that your inspired rhetorical "gotcha!" question, intended to make your audience realise how foolish they are not to have thought of the sea level rise from melting icecaps, in fact reveals how clueless you are about the relative sizes of the things you are casually imagining. Antarctica is big. But the Earth is a LOT bigger.
Melt not just Antarctica, but ALL the ice on Earth, and you will get less than 1% of the way to inundating the mountains.
A 70m sea level rise would be devastating - but it wouldn't come anywhere
near to the flood level claimed in Genesis.
It would drown a lot of coastal cities; But the total land area of most of the continents would be reduced only a little, and the basic shapes of the continents would remain easy recognisable:
View attachment 55567
That doesn't look like a global flood. The mountains are not inundated. Even some pretty low hills remain as dry land. Look at the Middle East. Noah's neighbours are mostly still not getting their boots damp.
