glaciers and the flood

I just thought of an interesting test of flood lore. As I understand it the waters of the flood covered the highest mountains to an excess of 15 cubits. What is the effect upon ice covered with warm ocean water to a depth of at least 20000 feet for a period of 40 days?I believe it would have been sufficient to melt all ice upon earth including the polar regions.Please correct me if I am wrong but supply some level of what would have occured to the ice.

Then they must explain the mechanism by which the Antartic ice sheet managed to attain a thickness of up to 3 miles in some areas.This is especially difficult since the precipitation on the continent is comparable to that of the Saharan desert.

Sheesh! You would think I could get at least a bite from the other viewpoints.And I'm even using mouthwash.Oh well time will tell.

The thing I am missing here is the concensus among believers of how much of the events that go on in the bible are subject to forces that we know deeply. I had a thread in another forum that was way off topic in which I was trying to get some kind of a response to other biblical passages which are not simply improbable but incapable of having not been recorded anywhere else on the planet since their effcts would be catastrophic on a planetwide scale.I do not know where to move my point in a thread since at one time I'll be told that these passages are descibing real things and yet at other times they are METAPHORICAL or even worse one line is real the next is metaphorical.I do enjoy trying to sort out the viewpoints among the background noise though.[This message has been edited by sidelined, 10-05-2003]

some_guy I am not familiar with the circumstances surrounding the "lost squadron" and the physics surrounding the planes location in ice however I will research it and get back to you.Sorry to burst the bubble old man but Antarctica is not Greenland. The precipitation levels are vastly different as you can see for yourself.
http://bonnet19.cs.qc.edu:7778/...a/rd_prcp.prcp_data_access
This is the website of the World Precipitation Data Center.You will be able to see for yourself what I mean.Greenland(Denmark)code 431
Antarctica code 700The 3 miles of ice accumulated can be seen to be unattainable in 3000 years.You are free,of course, to deny the evidence or offer a real explanation for the event.It would help to try and bring evidence that occurs on a least the same hemisphere right?

Ok so let us crunch the numbers shall we?Let us take the lower limit of the Greenland at 150 cm/year
Multiply by 45 years to get 6750 cm Divide by 2.54 to arrive at inches. 2657 inches divided by 12 equals 221 feet of rainfall. I can be persuaded for the moment to assume that when frozen this could become 75 feet. (we must for sake of argue ment understand that this is imprecise since snowfall contain 10 times as much water)Anyway we shall go to http://polarmet.mps.ohio-state.edu/...tracts/abs.CBV.97.html for this data on Antarctica.For the eleven year period 1985-95, the average continental value is 151 mm yr-1 water-equivalent.151 mm into 3 miles or 4.8 km4.8 km = 4,800,000 mm
divded by 151 mm = 31788 yearsThis is all very imprecise but as an example it gives us a firm foundation on which to get ahold of better data and see where the numbers take us.{Fixed link - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-08-2003][This message has been edited by sidelined, 10-08-2003]

I do hope I wasn't angering you with the crudity of my "number crunching."It was not meant to be in any way accurate but,rather,to illustrate that there is a vast difference in the accumulation rates of ice between Antarctica and Greenland.

Time to bump this tpoic back into view and see if we can get more input into the issues raised by it.

allenroyboy I am in agreement with you here,shall we get back to the OP question?