Two points: Multiple lines of evidence, from lake sediment analysis to dendrochronology and ice cores from both the Arctic and Antarctic, have long demonstrated that no single worldwide hydrological event of any kind occurred, around 4,000 years ago, give or take 10,000 years! Tree rings kept growing in regular fashion through the period, without a blip. Of course, these trees, sediments and ices are situated on top of thousands of feet of fossil-containing or chemically-accessible layers--some marine, some not--a fact which slips the notice of some readers here. In all, the physical evidence does not support anything more than regional flooding in the Mesopotamian area as the source of the Flood story. Certainly the presence of shells on top of Mt Everest does not even suggest that the earth's waters were ever 30,000 feet above current sea level; instead it corroborates the theory that the phenomenon we call the Himalayas was once a depository marine environment near our sea level, and was subsequently uplifted by the slowly colliding plates Indian and Asian plates.
Which brings me to my second point. Apologists and teachers who take the Bible literally should stop repeating disproven claims about earth history they have gleaned from creationist works like Morris's The Genesis Flood. Go take a course in earth sciences, read some current scientific literature. Or take a university level class in Genesis, which will quickly dispell silly ideas like "there was no rain before the Flood" (Gen 2:5-6) a claim based on the misreading of a single Hebrew phrase.
Two points: Multiple lines of evidence, from lake sediment analysis to dendrochronology and ice cores from both the Arctic and Antarctic, have long demonstrated that no single worldwide hydrological event of any kind occurred, around 4,000 years ago, give or take 10,000 years! Tree rings kept growing in regular fashion through the period, without a blip. Of course, these trees, sediments and ices are situated on top of thousands of feet of fossil-containing or chemically-accessible layers--some marine, some not--a fact which slips the notice of some readers here. In all, the physical evidence does not support anything more than regional flooding in the Mesopotamian area as the source of the Flood story. Certainly the presence of shells on top of Mt Everest does not even suggest that the earth's waters were ever 30,000 feet above current sea level; instead it corroborates the theory that the phenomenon we call the Himalayas was once a depository marine environment near our sea level, and was subsequently uplifted by the slowly colliding plates Indian and Asian plates.
Which brings me to my second point. Apologists and teachers who take the Bible literally should stop repeating disproven claims about earth history they have gleaned from creationist works like Morris's The Genesis Flood. Go take a course in earth sciences, read some current scientific literature. Or take a university level class in Genesis, which will quickly dispell silly ideas like "there was no rain before the Flood" (Gen 2:5-6) a claim based on the misreading of a single Hebrew phrase.