>> I was referring to the water that supposedly covered the earth,
>> higher than the highest mountains

> Oh, of course... "supposedly"

> Don't forget, and I know you haven't, that at one time people
> didn't have any idea of the big picture and a monster flood to
> them was a catastrophe of the whole world as they knew it,
> even if globally it was nothing special

Whereas nowadays we know everything about everything :-).
ie it's good to use the far improved perspectives that we may have 
gained from ongoing discoveries BUT it's easy to be blinded to reality 
by thinking that "we've come about as far as we can go."

As I've said before, look at the history of Plate Tectonics and its 
forbear as an example of

- how utterly entrenched a latterly really really stupid looking 
theory can be,

- how very very hard it is for an in hindsight "obviously correct" 
contender to get a fair hearing,

- how rapidly the change can come when it does, and

- how entrenched the new contender becomes in almost no time.

Who would now give any serious time to a new theory that says that 
"Plate Tectonics is completely wrong and that the real truth is that 
... ". This was PRECISELY what Plate Tectonics itself faced and took 
many many decades to overcome.

Exercise for the student:  What percentage of the volume of the 
oceans' water is the land volume above mean high water mark?

Note:

1.    Don't draw the wrong conclusions from the answer.

2.    Don't think that the answer is meant to imply anything.


            Russell








-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist