Firstly, theres no proof to be found on the DRY part of the world, and we havent checked the wet part.
Untrue, depending on what you mean with the 'wet part', there has been research done on sea floors to figure out more about geology. The sea is huge though, so of course not everything has been researched to the fullest yet. In time they will, but if there would have been a worldwide flood, they probably would already found clues.
Secondly, the bible (probably) says 'worldwide' flood, which is different to
'planetwide' flood. Check a dictionary for World and you'll find something
like "A part of the earth and its inhabitants as known at a given period in history".
So World meant "everything we know of", thats different to planetwide.
Sorry, but that's back paddling at best. Worldwide can be global just the same.
I DO think they must have meant local floods though, as those occurred a lot in that area. But the whole idea of how a wooden massive boat allegedly 'saved mankind' is a far more modern interpretation that simply makes no sense.
Who is the say that the flood needed more water? Land can sink, and anyone on it
would be shouting "FLOOD!!", not "SUBSIDENCE!!".
You don't need more water, you'll need less land, higher sea level and more importantly enough motion that could cause all this. In case you're wondering, you will never get a flood, especially a global flood, when nothing happens.
As for more water, that's probably not even needed as quite a lot of land lies beneath the sea level, but even then there's probably enough water already,
If that's the case, other than savoring effortless victory over the argument, why bother with the topic at all?
So true, but I guess they can be very stubborn when it comes to the evidence. The whole split-the-sea story can't possibly be true either, same goes for certain other stories or aspects of the Biblical stories...
Cheers
