Quote Originally Posted by MoonStarer420
I'll use Mount Ararat and assume 5200m.
This means that during the flood (according to the bible) about 6.3x10^17 m^3 of exess water was on the surface of the Earth. Assuming sea level was the same before and after. This is about 1.8 times the volume of the Atlantic ocean or approx. 2/5 of the current volume of water on the surface of the Earth.

So either the flood wasn't of the madnitude the bible claims or the sea level before the flood was much much lower.

I did this using the volume for a sphere, the radius of the Earth, the radius plus the height of Mt. Ararat and that website for the volume of water in the oceans.
No law of nature is broken if you really look at the account in genesis for the way the world was origionally (genesis implies the world had a different atmosphere....."the waters were divided and the gap was called sky"...water ON the earth as well as water ABOVE it) as it would have a different climate, and not to mention different plant life pre-flood. Therefore it's feesable (if you're willing to give it a try) to assume that because there was a canopy of water above the earth at this time, and that "floodgates of the deep were opened" (water coming up from the ground-we still don't really know what's down there) that it would ammount to enough water to drown the whole earth. Not to mention the Ice Age dudes! It's accounted for if you believe in the genesis flood as well! I'm saying a lot of science goes into creationism. It's less developed and newer than evolutionism, but the SAME facts and the SAME evidence is used to argue both cases...now it can't be a matter of science, but rather a matter of science in the hands of PEOPLE.

Therefore to prove, using science, that the bible is wrong is impossible, because you can prove, using science, that the bible is right as well. Now the question is an entirely new one grounded in what you're prepared to accept as true, outside of what "fits" YOUR lifestyle. It's a question of philosophy.