Why are you evos so scared of presenting an answer? 

If the earth was smooth...how high would the water be? 

57: If the earth was smooth...how high would the water be?

According to the Bible:  Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

So either

1). the water was 15 cubits high (20-33 feet, depending on what definition of cubit you use) and covered "all the high hills" and "mountains" --- which means the authors of the Bible lied about what the world around them looked like since 33 feet does not a mountain make and that all those fossils in the flood layers of animals and plants from mountain terrain came from some other planet, because no such place existed on Earth pre-flood

or

2). the water was 15 cubits higher than the moutains, the heights of which are not in any way specified, but were of sufficient height to merit the word "mountain."

Of course, we already know that the whole Noah's flood never really happened; the physical evidence from the real world tells us so:

* If these sedimentary strata were all laid down by one event, they should be the same age --- and they aren't.  Erosion comparisons of the Appalachians and the Himalayas says the former is 7 times older than the latter.  And before you claim that the Appalachians just erode way faster, make sure you have a scientific explanation complete with supporting evidence for why that superfast erosion suddenly stopped when human observers came on the scene.

* The marine fossils in these various sedimentary layers are very different from each other: Himalayan fossils are typical of the Triassic,  the ones in the Appalachians are typical of the Paleozoic  and the ones found in places like Kansas (from the North American inland sea) are typical of the Cretaceous.  The age of the rock as suggested by these fossils correlates beautifully with the age of the rock as suggested by erosion.

* If the flood was really responsible for these sediments, then fluid dynamics dictates that the smaller creatures would sink slower than larger ones and thus should dominate the upper layers.  Instead, their fossils dominate the lower layers.

* There is no known process by which a year-long flood can produce areas like the Haymond beds in Texas, that had 15,000 alternating layers, meaning each one was laid down and lithified sufficiently not to mix with subsequent deposits once ever 10 minutes.

* YECism fails to explain the existence, part-way through these sedimentary layers (and thus partway through the flood) of: raindrop marks, river channels, dunes formed by wind, beaches, footprints, meteorite craters and coral reefs.

* Lithification to form limestone releases heat.  Given that there is about 5 X 10²³ grams of limestone in these sediments and each gram released about 11,000 joules upon formation, then formation of the limestone would have released around 5 x 10²⁷ joules of heat, sufficient to boil away the flood waters and parboil everything on the ark.

* And of course, there is the whole problem of how the fossil record is sorted; YECs have been unable to provide a single, reasonable explanation for why flying dinosaurs drowned before slow-moving mammals and why not a single human artifact is ever found in the lower layers of the fossil record.

How many different ways does the YEC "paradigm" have to utterly fail before you recognize that the whole thing is physically and scientifically impossible and is actually nothing more than a mix of very bad theology and pseudo-science nonsense?

My, My, My...why can't you evos answer the question? 

if the earth was smooth, how much water would cover the surface?