If the flood had to cover 4000 meters, that is 100 meters per day. That does not leave much room for water ebbing and rising.
2 Likes
Yeah, it’s a major unanswered question. But historical science is full of unanswered questions, so that comes as no surprise.
You are assuming a constant and uniform rise, but the surface of the planet was probably not uniform then, even if it wasn’t as jagged as we find it today. And that is not to mention that we don’t understand exactly what physical mechanism was causing the rise to begin with.
You’re saying animals wouldn’t burrow if it was raining?
First such massive rain volumes (as well as the “breaking forth of the fountains of the deep”) would surely flood and overwhelm animal burrows quite quickly.
Secondly, read my description of the 15,000 layers of the Haymond Formation again. Why were the tunnels and borrows of each layer independent from those of the other layers—even though “flood geologists” have claimed that such sedimentary formations were created in the single year of the flood. (Also, did the burrowing animals have scuba gear?)
1 Like
Based upon what evidence?
Secondly, read my description of the 15,000 layers of the Haymond Formation again. Why were the tunnels and borrows of each layer independent from those of the other layers—even though “flood geologists” have claimed that such sedimentary formations were created in the single year of the flood.
I don’t know whether I believe the claim that they are really independent in the first place. Lots of assumptions go into making such proclamations. I would have to engage in a deep study of the formation, and what features are being claimed to show independent bioturbation, etc. I may undertake that in the future and write something up on it.
If there were dead animals with carcasses lying on the surface at the time of the flood…
Massive hand-wave.
You could just as easily use that reasoning to justify Robert Byers “theory” of light propagation. (Or non-propagation?) If “historical science is full of unanswered questions” and all is game, even the most preposterous claims can be made with absolutely zero evidence.
Meanwhile, this and virtually all “flood geology” is based on an absence of evidence from real geology or from the Bible itself. This has been a YEC tradition since George Mcready Price. It helps explain why so many people accept Ken Ham’s claim of a Flood-associated single Ice Age, despite not a single shred of evidence from the Bible or from what we observe in God’s creation today. (Moreover, the claim by various origins ministries that the flood also effected the moon and the rest of the solar system is just as void of scriptural and scientific support.)
I eventually left the YEC community because I started checking out the footnotes and citations in the books by Gish, Morris, and Whitcomb—and most of all because I started studying the Hebrew scriptures, Genesis in particular. I realized that I had gotten caught up by man-made traditions which had very little to do with what God has actually revealed in his scriptures and his creation.
To repeat an important point I’ve made many times in the past on PS: I have no conflict with those who happen to interpret Genesis as describing a young earth. My problem is when they make adamant claims which simply aren’t to be found in the Bible and when they misrepresent the evidence and science. Most of my frustration is directed at the origins ministry entrepreneurs who churn out falsehoods and quote-mines which deceive innocent people who simply don’t know much about science and the Bible. They trust what they are told. In my lifetime I’ve watched the origins industry become a mega-millions-of-dollars business enterprise.
1 Like
There would have been, and they would have been fossilized by the Flood, not before the Flood.
Yes, but they would be fossils of pre-flood animals or their traces. The comment of yours that I first responded to was arguing against the existence of things like pre-flood burrows being found in the fossil record.
Every fossil from the Flood is from an animal that had been living prior to the time of the Flood, unless there happened to be some things born during those 40 days that got fossilized.
Why did you ignore the second part of my comment? That was the most important part.
I already responded to the burrows. I don’t see them as a problem for the Flood.
You know what helps with that? Observational science! Geologists have a detailed and coherent picture of the Earth’s history. This is gleaned from matching observable geologic processes and applying the understanding gained to observable features to be found in geology. The origin of the alps, the Rockies, the Himalayas, the oceanic rifts, the matching of formations between South America and Africa, the wear pattern of volcanic islands of the Hawaii and Galapagos chains, distributions of trilobites, magnetic reversals and direction, lava plains, its all covered. So while science is always chasing the horizon of knowledge, the good news is that historical science is full of answered questions!
The reason that the mechanism of flood geology is self contradictory and full of unanswered questions is that one, YEC do not believe in observational science, or at least do not base anything on it, and two, YEC do not interpret evidence, they dismiss evidence.
2 Likes
That’s a separate point, but just because you don’t think they’re a problem doesn’t mean they really aren’t. I’ve yet to see a comprehensive flood model than is simultaneously catastrophic yet allows for extended respites at all levels of the geologic column for animals to go about their business as usual - making burrows, buildings nests and laying their eggs in them, having these eggs hatch, etc etc etc.
LOL! Ah, the good old magic Flood! It slices, it dices, it walks the dog. 
The magic Flood is violent and rapid when it needs be, gentle and receding in waves when it need be. It created vertical walls with dino tracks, it created angular unconformities. Heck, the magic Flood not only sorted all those fossils by their species (no trilobites mixed with clams), it also sorted carbon containing material by the isotopic C14/C12 ratio, burying the lesser C14 lower than the greater amount!
It’s shame you don’t have the ability to step back and look at all these ridiculous YEC ad hoc claims you keep making from a consilient scientific perspective. All that info on plate tectonics and bio-distribution and lagerstatten went in one ear and out the other.
6 Likes
Here’s a better idea. Why not commit to digging into the actual evidence, not what anyone says about the evidence?
Even AIG admits the waves created by Catastrophic Continental Sprint would be devastatingly huge, not to mention constant throughout the ordeal, and coming from all directions.
Even if the Ark could survive bow first through countless tsunamis, it couldn’t turn fast enough to take on tsunamis coming broadside. This also assumes that 100 foot drops or more wouldn’t break bones or necks of those aboard, (or the ship itself).
Then there’s the physics of such an event. Needless to say, there is no evidence the Earth could produce such a phenomena, which is why Creation Science will not explain it with actual science.
1 Like
The heat problem associated with accelerating plate movement from centimeters per year to hundreds of meters per hour, is insurmountable. It would not be Noah’s flood. It would be Noah’s scalding steam bath.
1 Like
You did not already respond to this.
.