Flood Geology

I wanted to bring this discussion out of the Neanderthal thread so as to keep that one on track.  I'm replying to one of Paul Iacono's posts in that thread which can be found here.

Because I don't think it could happen, Justin.

You’re welcome to your opinion, but truth is not determined by whether or not you think it is.

You present "evidence" of sediments spread out over large areas, ravines that were carved in a few days that "prove" that the Grand Freakin' Canyon "could have been" carved in a few days. All of which are perfectly explainable -- and explained -- by standard geologic science.

Even if I were to agree that “standard geologic science” could perfectly explain everything, at best you have two competing models.  If catastrophic plate tectonics explains the observed phenomena equally well, there is no reason, other than philosophical to oppose it.

But you have no answers to questions like Where did the water come from?

I’m assuming that you’re referring to the argument that the water present on the planet could never completely submerge the Earth.  This is true is you’re working with the present topography.  Most Flood models put forth that the Earth’s surface was much different before the flood than it is today (no Mt. Everest to try and overcome).

Where did it go?

It’s still here!

If all the animals were on the Arc, what did the meat-eating animals eat for the first year or so after the arc landed? Wouldn't they have eaten up all the grass eating animals?

You’re assuming that the animals that are carnivorous today were at the time of the flood.  God originally created all life as vegetarian.  How and when animals began to eat meat is a matter of speculation, but scripture DOES tell us that God only allowed for man to eat meat AFTER the flood.   

What did the grass eating animals eat? There was no grass!

How do you figure?  One of the birds that Noah sent out came back with an olive leaf.  It was another week until he sent the dove out again.  Certainly, that’s enough time for grass to have made a comeback.

How was it that some animals only dispersed to Australia, while others only dispersed to Antarctica?

Because some animals dispersed to Australia, and some dispersed to Antarctica... not really sure what you were aiming at here.

Wasn't the land already broken up by the flood? So how did they get to Australia and Antarctica? Kangaroos swam across thousands of miles of ocean?

Most creationists accept that the land was broken up during the flood, but we know there were land bridges to several places, exposed by a post-flood ice age, which are now inaccessible expect by sea travel.  Animals could easily have traversed the land bridges only to have been cut off as the sea levels rose.

 Wait, what !?!-- it broke up after the flood, like your Neanderthal article suggests? Then why weren't there more floods? More volcanoes? More earthquakes? That's a lot of land moving around in a very short time. Entire continents moving feet at a time! I guarantee you there would have been global upheaval!

I personally disagree with the idea of a post-Flood continental break up, but it’s important to not be dogmatic about it.  At any rate, I agree with you, as do most creationists whose material I’ve read, that there was a great amount of upheaval following the flood.  There were probably several localized catastrophes involving earthquakes and/or volcanoes.  Volcanic activity and warm oceans more than likely triggered the ice age that followed the flood (according to some models).

There are fish fossils on top of Everest because the waters covered Everest? Wait -- what?!?! I thought the global flood created Everest! And all the other mountains -- that's why the water was able to cover the entire earth, right? Because until all that upheaval, there weren't any high mountains.

You seem to be mixing two models here and trying to use the inconsistencies between the two as evidence that BOTH are wrong.  From my reading, sea-life fossils are at the top of Everest because Everest was lifted up from the ocean floor.  Simply explained, I’d say.

Fossils were laid down because of the flood? So how come all the most basic creatures died first? How come the lowest levels of fossils are all, like trilobites, and only in higher levels do we find vertabrates. And higher we find dinosaurs. And higher we find mammals. And still higher we find early man!!

Using terms like “most basic,” “lowest levels,” and “higher levels” are only meaningful if you begin with the assumption that evolution is true.  That’s the circular logic to which you seemed so opposed not too long ago.

Justin... regardless of the geological "evidence" you offer, which is all explained in a standard model, there are a thousand problems with a "global flood".

Like what?  The “problems” you listed above that anyone with a basic understanding of YEC Flood Models can answer?  All you’ve done here, Paul, is expose your own biases and lack of understanding of Flood geology.