You should perhaps understand what Genesis is actually saying before you post what was imagined by a people who never got things right very often.
Their understanding of scripture and ours might be a very different thing.
But you don't understand that Genesis is merely a myth, not to be taken literally, historically or scientifically.
And this, your interpretation of Genesis and trying to fit and twist Genesis Creation and Flood into science, is not science:
Genesis mentions a divide between the waters above and the waters below the expanse. If there was a canopy of water surrounding the earth at creation, then that would explain earth's uniform climate that was once a fact since they have unearthed palm trees in Siberia. It would have created hot house conditions without the need for rain. According to Genesis, it had not rained before the flood. Dramatic climate change would have occurred if that water canopy was used to flood the earth. It would also explain man's drastically reduced lifespan from that time onward. Exposure to more radiation ages everything.
Where did all the water go? It was drawn to the magnetic poles and suspended as ice. Global warming is melting the ice shelves, so if it continues and the poles dump all that water back in the oceans, the earth will again be flooded.
I find that totally logical.....you can think whatever you like.
Have you ever calculated the years between creation of Adam to the Flood, Deeje?
According to the most modern Western translations of Genesis, which is based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text, that's 1656 years, Deeje.
1656 years! Are you telling us that there were no rain for 1656 years? Do you have a single shred of evidence, that there have been no rain in all that time?
Depending on how you interpret Exodus 12:40-41, the 430 years, it would put the time of Adam creation from anywhere between 5700 and nearly 6000 BCE, meaning that the Flood could occur between 2100 and 2340 BCE. These dates are approximate, not exact dates.
It is one thing to believe in Genesis, but it is a hold different thing when dealing with real history and real science.
And you have mentioned "ice shelves" and such.
According to you, the ice melted, caused the Flood, and then the water simply magically and miraculous turn into ice again.
Do you have evidence for this?
I don't think you do. Ice shelves just don't appear, disappear (Flood) and reappear again, like magic or miracles. In Greenland and Antarctica, those ice shelves have been there hundreds of thousands of years, for it to build up to this day and age.
If there were evidences for your magical Flood, then it should show up on the ice themselves. Your idea about the ice shelves and Noah's Flood are purely speculative, not supported by the ice.
Ice cores have been taken by many expeditions. They take samples of ice cores, and they showed what occurred annually with the atmosphere, as well as evidence of flood or not flood. The ice core showed built-up of ice over the years, centuries and millennia, and it all depends on how deep samples were taken from the ice are.
The older the ice, the deeper the sample must be. The depth of each sample can range from as short as 10 metres to over a thousand metres.
Are you getting the picture here, Deeje?
The scientists can show the age of the ice, just like they do with when taking core sample of very old to ancient trees. On the trees, it not only revealed its age, right to time when they are mere sapling, but it also reveal when there were drought, or when there are too much or too little carbons (or other gases, like nitrogen, oxygen, etc), when there were fire, etc.
You would also have to taken into account the older the ice, the deeper the ice, BUT the deeper the ice, the more pressures the ice exert on itself. It is like submarine experiencing increasing pressures, as the vessel go deeper into the ocean.
One of the deepest drilling for the ice core sample was at Dome C at the Antarctica, measuring just over 3300 metres. This ice showed that the built-up of all the layers of ice, dated to 800,000 years. But this is just the deepest sample taken. Other samples taken from different locations of the Antarctica, are not as deep as Dome C sample, but it still showed the some of the deep samples taken were certainly older than 5400 (flood), older than 6000 years (Adam).
The polar ice took hundred of millennia to build up. They don't melt instantly or re-freeze instantly.
Which bring me back to my point about Genesis being a myth, and your speculation on the Genesis being unscientific.
If your baseless speculation were true, then that all the polar ice melted, causing the water to flood the earth, and then refreeze, THEN the ice should be no older than 4300 years old (or around 2300 BCE). Ancient ice cannot be melted and then refreeze the water to ice, to show the same ancient age as before.
Sorry, Deeje, but you don't know what you are talking about, when you talk of "ice shelves" and the Genesis Flood.
And speaking of water pressures. I gave you example of submarine experiencing pressures from the water, the deeper submarine goes. As the submarine reach critical depth, the crushing pressure would cause the vessel hull to buckle, and the submarine would resemble like an empty aluminum can of soda, that you can crush with your hand.
Well, with this scenario of water pressures, what would you think happen to land plant life?
According to the Genesis, the Flood covered the entire earth, including the highest mountains. Now everyone know that Mount Everest is the tallest mountain, at over 8000 metres high. Even if the Flood covered only over Mount Ararat, that still over 5000 metres high.
A WW2 submarine would be crushed at 280 metres. Can you imagine what 5000 metres be like?
All the trees, like olive trees and cedar trees, cannot and would not survive when the Flood water disappeared, Deeje. The water pressures alone, at that depth, would kill off any tree.
I know that you didn't say anything about water pressures, but to not consider the possibilities of what would happen at such depth, would just show that how very little to understand about nature and about science.
Anyway, I find your scenario about the Flood, to be unrealistic and unscientific, based on a lot of twisting science to suit your imagination.
