The Bible and the Ancient Earth

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

It's only secular models that are surprised to find deep water.

Can you find a non-secular model that says water should be that deep?    The creationist beliefs seem to have the idea of ancient Hebrews that there was a solid dome of the sky, above which was a huge amount of water, and that the flat Earth sitting on an ocean of water below. 

https://ithinkibelieve.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/firmament.jpg

 

That doesn't seem to fit reality very well.

And finding small amounts of water trapped deep in the Earth, does not fit the creationist belief that there's enough water there to submerge mountains.

 

[teddyv]

Hello @Tristen

Likewise, I hope you don't mind me jumping in as well.

I'm still newish here, but I have seen your posts and know where you stand, but above all, I appreciate your graciousness in your posting style.

I'm not going to repost everything you wrote because there's all sorts of formatting and quoting of Saved.One.by.Grace which will get confusing, so hopefully I don't decontextualize anything.

Quote

Now I know I'm being a bit persnickety here – but I wonder where you get your analysis of how deep the water “should be”? It's only secular models that are surprised to find deep water.

That report of free water appears to still be unverified by subsequent drilling endeavours. Reading between the lines of your comment, you would be alluding to "the waters of the deep"? 

Quote

Scientists have long understood that there is at least ten times the amount of surface ocean water stored in deep rocks.

And that is not free water - it is locked up in crystals: from the first linked New Scientist article: "But this water is not a series of immense seas. Rather, it is scattered in droplets, some as small as a single molecule, with most trapped inside crystal lattices of rare minerals that only form under intense pressures. How much there is down there is still fiercely debated."

Quote

Agreed that you “need to think about it more” - because “a regional flood” is not “what the Bible says”.

Genesis 7:19 - And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered

Genesis 9:11 - Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth

Yet we have had many, many “regional” floods since the time of God's promise (which is to say that “a regional flood” is difficult to defend Biblically).

Was the famine of Egypt during the time Joseph truly global? Genesis 41:57 tells us that "all the world came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph because the famine was severe everywhere." I recently read that Answers in Genesis is actually advocating for this this which is actually consistent with the global flood concept.

Anyway, we have not seen regional floods on the order of those out of the last Ice Age.

Quote

The amount of water has never been a problem for the Biblical model of a global flood.

The following image is a hypsographic curve that summarises the average land elevation vs water depth currently found across the earth's surface (found at: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Oc-Po/Ocean-Floor-Bathymetry.html ).

If you were to average out the land mass, the land would clearly be submerged under several kilometres of water. So the global flood model does not need any more water, it just needs to assume that the geological structure of the surface was different before the flood – which is not such a stretch; given the massive hydrological forces that would be expected to reshape the surface during a global flood. It is possible that fast running water carved out deep ocean trenches for the flood waters to drain into.

There are some large assumptions here that the earth had far less topographic features prior to the Flood. It implies that the great mountain ranges were formed over a period of 40-150 days. The sheer energy involved to move the great plates and upthrust these mountains is simply too much for the crust to bear and would simply melt. Furthermore, there are no indicators in the rocks themselves of such a cataclysmic upheaval. We should see incredibly large diatremes and breccias if this were the case. There are many other issues around this geologically that simple cannot support this idea.

Since you earlier suggested that the locked in water in the mantle was freed up, there has to be a plausible method to do this (as well as relock it up after the Flood) particularly if you are invoking a natural mechanism that was employed by God in the process of the Flood. If you are invoking divine protection for the earth and the ark in this whole event, then it may be best to simply ignore attempting to reconcile observations we make of the earth with the Flood narrative.

The latter point of running water cutting out trenches in the ocean floor also makes little sense because they were always under the water. It is very well established that the ocean trenches are the sites of subduction. It is measured and observed.

[Tristen]

5 hours ago, teddyv said:

Hello @Tristen

Likewise, I hope you don't mind me jumping in as well.

I'm still newish here, but I have seen your posts and know where you stand, but above all, I appreciate your graciousness in your posting style.

I'm not going to repost everything you wrote because there's all sorts of formatting and quoting of Saved.One.by.Grace which will get confusing, so hopefully I don't decontextualize anything.

That report of free water appears to still be unverified by subsequent drilling endeavours. Reading between the lines of your comment, you would be alluding to "the waters of the deep"? 

And that is not free water - it is locked up in crystals: from the first linked New Scientist article: "But this water is not a series of immense seas. Rather, it is scattered in droplets, some as small as a single molecule, with most trapped inside crystal lattices of rare minerals that only form under intense pressures. How much there is down there is still fiercely debated."

Was the famine of Egypt during the time Joseph truly global? Genesis 41:57 tells us that "all the world came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph because the famine was severe everywhere." I recently read that Answers in Genesis is actually advocating for this this which is actually consistent with the global flood concept.

Anyway, we have not seen regional floods on the order of those out of the last Ice Age.

There are some large assumptions here that the earth had far less topographic features prior to the Flood. It implies that the great mountain ranges were formed over a period of 40-150 days. The sheer energy involved to move the great plates and upthrust these mountains is simply too much for the crust to bear and would simply melt. Furthermore, there are no indicators in the rocks themselves of such a cataclysmic upheaval. We should see incredibly large diatremes and breccias if this were the case. There are many other issues around this geologically that simple cannot support this idea.

Since you earlier suggested that the locked in water in the mantle was freed up, there has to be a plausible method to do this (as well as relock it up after the Flood) particularly if you are invoking a natural mechanism that was employed by God in the process of the Flood. If you are invoking divine protection for the earth and the ark in this whole event, then it may be best to simply ignore attempting to reconcile observations we make of the earth with the Flood narrative.

The latter point of running water cutting out trenches in the ocean floor also makes little sense because they were always under the water. It is very well established that the ocean trenches are the sites of subduction. It is measured and observed.

Hi Teddy,

You said, “That report of free water appears to still be unverified by subsequent drilling endeavours. Reading between the lines of your comment, you would be alluding to "the waters of the deep"? And that is not free water - it is locked up in crystals”

I'm not exactly sure about your point here. Genesis 7:11 tells us that the flood water was sourced from “fountains of the great deep” along with the “windows of heaven”. It is therefore unsurprising to a Biblical creationist that we find sources of water deep underground in places that surprise the adherents of secular models.

When this question arises, there is an general implication of there not being enough observed water to account for a Biblical-scale, global flood. But there are several lines of evidence demonstrating that the amount of water is no problem for the Biblical account of a global flood.

 

“Was the famine of Egypt during the time Joseph truly global? Genesis 41:57 tells us that "all the world came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph because the famine was severe everywhere." I recently read that Answers in Genesis is actually advocating for this this which is actually consistent with the global flood concept”

If I've counted correctly, there were 14 generations from Noah to Joseph (inclusive). It is reasonable to assume that humans had not yet dispersed across the globe; especially given the 'Babel incident' (Genesis 11) – which demonstrated the human tendency to congregate rather than disperse.

Given that the ark settled on the Ararat Mountains, that would mean that most of the world's population at the time probably lived between Iraq and Egypt. I have no issue with the claim that people from those lands travelled to Egypt for food in the time of famine.

I am not familiar with the AIG article, but I assume they arrived at a similar conclusion.

 

“Anyway, we have not seen regional floods on the order of those out of the last Ice Age”

If God meant a “regional flood” (despite the emphatic language to the contrary), then any “regional flood” since Noah would be a breach of the covenant.

 

“There are some large assumptions here that the earth had far less topographic features prior to the Flood”

Yes - It is a proposal regarding a planetary geological catastrophe. I am assuming that a catastrophe on such a massive scale would render significant changes to the surface of the earth.

 

“It implies that the great mountain ranges were formed over a period of 40-150 days”

Noah was in the ark for over a year – but yes, still short by uniformitarian standards. Nevertheless, I am advocating for a catastrophic model of mountain formation, not a uniformitarian one.

 

“The sheer energy involved to move the great plates and upthrust these mountains is simply too much for the crust to bear and would simply melt”

I would expect stupendous amounts of energy to be produced by a catastrophe involving a planetary crust sandwiched between two pervasive liquids. I do not think anyone can claim to be certain about the effects of this amount of energy being released on a global scale. If, for example, the viscosity of the mantel was significantly lowered, then catastrophic plate tectonic upheaval is plausible.

All models of the unobserved past have their challenges. Creationists are in the earlier stages of developing a flood geology model – though it has been debated for decades. If interested, there is a fairly recent (2016) creationist overview of the debate here; https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j30_1/j30_1_76-82.pdf

 

“Furthermore, there are no indicators in the rocks themselves of such a cataclysmic upheaval. We should see incredibly large diatremes and breccias if this were the case”

You seem to be claiming to know what we should expect in the absence of any proposed mechanism. Above you suggested the formations would instead “melt”. Your argument here is inconsistent, and approaches the fallacy Argument from Ignorance.

I don't see any reason necessitating an expectation of “incredibly large diatremes”. “Breccias” are commonly found around large geological formations. Some breccias are oriented in alignment – indicating the presence of strong water currents at the time of formation.

 

“There are many other issues around this geologically that simple cannot support this idea”

If there is a fact that demonstrates the impossibility of catastrophic tectonic upheaval, you should lead with that.

 

“Since you earlier suggested that the locked in water in the mantle was freed up, there has to be a plausible method to do this (as well as relock it up after the Flood) particularly if you are invoking a natural mechanism that was employed by God in the process of the Flood. If you are invoking divine protection for the earth and the ark in this whole event, then it may be best to simply ignore attempting to reconcile observations we make of the earth with the Flood narrative”

I was responding to the common insinuation that there is not enough observed water on earth to account for a global flood. The facts demonstrate unequivocally that there is more-than-enough water on earth to account for a global flood; in the oceans alone, but even more still underground.

I did not “suggest” what you suggested I suggested.

 

“The latter point of running water cutting out trenches in the ocean floor also makes little sense because they were always under the water. It is very well established that the ocean trenches are the sites of subduction. It is measured and observed”

Fair enough. The main point is that, under a global flood model, the formation of the trenches during the flood provided a receptacle for the copious amounts of flood water.

 

[Guest]

Source: Gaines R. Johnson

https://www.kjvbible.org/images/bggnewlogo.jpg

The Fountains of Noah's Flood and the Windows of Heaven

https://www.kjvbible.org/Lifts/gyser.jpg

The Bible says that the waters of Noah's flood covered all of the Earth to above the peaks of the tallest mountains:

"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."
(Genesis 7:19-20 KJV)

If this flood was literal and global, then we are confronted with the "Mount Everest" problem. Located in Nepal, Mount Everest is the Earth's highest peak. It is also the highest peak in a range of mountains stretching across 1,500 miles and containing more than 1000 peaks higher than 20,000 feet.

Mount Everest is presently at a height of 29,028 feet above sea level and getting taller at the rate of about 3-5 millimeters per year. Assuming the tectonic uplift rate of the Himalayan range has been uniform since the days of Noah's flood, Mount Everest would have been only about forty-three (43) feet shorter (28,985 ft.) back in Noah's day. That is still a considerable height, equal to about 5.5 miles above present sea level. It would take a lot of water for the flood to reach that depth - more water than is presently above the crust of the earth. Where did so much water come from and where did it go after the flood?

Edited December 3, 2020 by Saved.One.by.Grace

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

I'm not exactly sure about your point here. Genesis 7:11 tells us that the flood water was sourced from “fountains of the great deep” along with the “windows of heaven”. It is therefore unsurprising to a Biblical creationist that we find sources of water deep underground in places that surprise the adherents of secular models.

When this question arises, there is an general implication of there not being enough observed water to account for a Biblical-scale, global flood. But there are several lines of evidence demonstrating that the amount of water is no problem for the Biblical account of a global flood.

Hello again, Tristen.

The point of the 'free water' comment was that it has not been verified by other drilling efforts and it appears there are no records from the original work by the Russians.

As to "enough water" in the mantle, that's fair enough comment. However, because there is enough water for the catastrophic Flood view it does require that this locked up water, some as small as single molecules, can be efficiently extracted, mobilized to the surface and then subsequently reabsorbed and recrystallized back in the mantle in less than a year.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

If I've counted correctly, there were 14 generations from Noah to Joseph (inclusive). It is reasonable to assume that humans had not yet dispersed across the globe; especially given the 'Babel incident' (Genesis 11) – which demonstrated the human tendency to congregate rather than disperse.

Given that the ark settled on the Ararat Mountains, that would mean that most of the world's population at the time probably lived between Iraq and Egypt. I have no issue with the claim that people from those lands travelled to Egypt for food in the time of famine.

I am not familiar with the AIG article, but I assume they arrived at a similar conclusion.

I don't want to assume anything, like whether you hold to the Ussher timeline or not, as that has implications on the timing of dispersal of the peoples. 

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

If God meant a “regional flood” (despite the emphatic language to the contrary), then any “regional flood” since Noah would be a breach of the covenant.

I don't have it at my hands, but I have heard whole world/earth interpretation could mean within the author/character's knowledge. There are examples in the Bible where kings are reportedly rule over the whole earth - i.e. Cyrus.

Quote

 

2 Chronicles 36:23 

“This is what Cyrus king of Persia says:

“‘The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Any of his people among you may go up, and may the Lord their God be with them.’”

 

 

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

“There are some large assumptions here that the earth had far less topographic features prior to the Flood”

Yes - It is a proposal regarding a planetary geological catastrophe. I am assuming that a catastrophe on such a massive scale would render significant changes to the surface of the earth.

Turning the crust over would be pretty significant. ;)

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

“It implies that the great mountain ranges were formed over a period of 40-150 days”

Noah was in the ark for over a year – but yes, still short by uniformitarian standards. Nevertheless, I am advocating for a catastrophic model of mountain formation, not a uniformitarian one.

Yes, that is evident.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

“The sheer energy involved to move the great plates and upthrust these mountains is simply too much for the crust to bear and would simply melt”

I would expect stupendous amounts of energy to be produced by a catastrophe involving a planetary crust sandwiched between two pervasive liquids. I do not think anyone can claim to be certain about the effects of this amount of energy being released on a global scale. If, for example, the viscosity of the mantel was significantly lowered, then catastrophic plate tectonic upheaval is plausible.

All models of the unobserved past have their challenges. Creationists are in the earlier stages of developing a flood geology model – though it has been debated for decades. If interested, there is a fairly recent (2016) creationist overview of the debate here; https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j30_1/j30_1_76-82.pdf

There is no reason it can't be calculated. While I don't have the numbers, this should be pretty standard thermodynamic calculations. I'm sure I've seen it somewhere. But here is a paper by AiG talking about the problems.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

You seem to be claiming to know what we should expect in the absence of any proposed mechanism. Above you suggested the formations would instead “melt”. Your argument here is inconsistent, and approaches the fallacy Argument from Ignorance.

I don't see any reason necessitating an expectation of “incredibly large diatremes”. “Breccias” are commonly found around large geological formations. Some breccias are oriented in alignment – indicating the presence of strong water currents at the time of formation.

As a geologist, I am quite familiar with what I should expect with hydrothermal processes and the physical characteristics of rocks. If you are going to move these volumes of water through the crust, at the plate boundaries (I assume), this will result in very high stresses in the crustal rocks resulting in globally extensive formation of breccias and other examples of brittle deformation. The thermal alteration should be quite evident.

 

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

“There are many other issues around this geologically that simple cannot support this idea”

If there is a fact that demonstrates the impossibility of catastrophic tectonic upheaval, you should lead with that.

The energy dissipation issue is the main one to overcome. Unless you suspend physics.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

I was responding to the common insinuation that there is not enough observed water on earth to account for a global flood. The facts demonstrate unequivocally that there is more-than-enough water on earth to account for a global flood; in the oceans alone, but even more still underground.

I did not “suggest” what you suggested I suggested.

It is very much an implicit suggestion, which I addressed earlier. Just because you've got the volume does not mean you can access it the way that you need it.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

I'm not exactly sure about your point here. Genesis 7:11 tells us that the flood water was sourced from “fountains of the great deep” along with the “windows of heaven”. It is therefore unsurprising to a Biblical creationist that we find sources of water deep underground in places that surprise the adherents of secular models.

Did a YEC scientist make this discovery? Since they made the hypothesis they should have been out there testing for this. But it appears that it was the so-called secular scientists that made this discovery.

[Who me]

8 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

If this flood was literal and global, then we are confronted with the "Mount Everest" problem. Located in Nepal, Mount Everest is the Earth's highest peak. It is also the highest peak in a range of mountains stretching across 1,500 miles and containing more than 1000 peaks higher than 20,000 feet

If it was literal, well Jesus referee to Noah and the Flood as literal so maybe Jesus lied, was economical with the truth.

Or maybe as he is the truth the global flood was a real event, in which case my Everest being a product of the flood it is not a problem.

Try answersingenesis, or creation ministries, yes yec sites. Don't panic reading them will not make you a yec'er.

Consider this, they stand on the total accuracy and authority of scripture, so are useful to investigate what scripture does actually say rather than what people's preconceived ideas think it says.

 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Who me said:

If it was literal, well Jesus referee to Noah and the Flood as literal so maybe Jesus lied, was economical with the truth.

Or maybe as he is the truth the global flood was a real event, in which case my Everest being a product of the flood it is not a problem.

Try answersingenesis, or creation ministries, yes yec sites. Don't panic reading them will not make you a yec'er.

Consider this, they stand on the total accuracy and authority of scripture, so are useful to investigate what scripture does actually say rather than what people's preconceived ideas think it says.

You must be using a different bible.  Is this one you wrote yourself?  The word used for flood generally refers to a river or stream.  [Hastings Dictionary of the Bible]  It usually refers to the River Euphrates.  [Easton's Bible Dictionary]   There's one exception in Psalm 66:6 where it refers to the River Jordan.  [Easton's Bible Dictionary]  So Jesus was referring to a river too cleansing the land.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Saved.One.by.Grace

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

If it was literal, well Jesus referee to Noah and the Flood as literal so maybe Jesus lied

Show us there Jesus said it was literal.   If your argument is that repeating a figurative story makes it literal, what is your evidence for that?

 

[Tristen]

On 12/3/2020 at 10:47 AM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Source: Gaines R. Johnson

https://www.kjvbible.org/images/bggnewlogo.jpg

The Fountains of Noah's Flood and the Windows of Heaven

https://www.kjvbible.org/Lifts/gyser.jpg

The Bible says that the waters of Noah's flood covered all of the Earth to above the peaks of the tallest mountains:

"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."
(Genesis 7:19-20 KJV)

If this flood was literal and global, then we are confronted with the "Mount Everest" problem. Located in Nepal, Mount Everest is the Earth's highest peak. It is also the highest peak in a range of mountains stretching across 1,500 miles and containing more than 1000 peaks higher than 20,000 feet.

Mount Everest is presently at a height of 29,028 feet above sea level and getting taller at the rate of about 3-5 millimeters per year. Assuming the tectonic uplift rate of the Himalayan range has been uniform since the days of Noah's flood, Mount Everest would have been only about forty-three (43) feet shorter (28,985 ft.) back in Noah's day. That is still a considerable height, equal to about 5.5 miles above present sea level. It would take a lot of water for the flood to reach that depth - more water than is presently above the crust of the earth. Where did so much water come from and where did it go after the flood?

“Assuming the tectonic uplift rate of the Himalayan range has been uniform since the days of Noah's flood”

Understanding that this is an assumption is key to objectively understanding my position in the discussion. The two paradigms are uniformitarian versus catastrophism. These starting assumptions determine how we interpret the facts.

Those like me who advocate for a global flood operate on the starting assumption that such an event represents a catastrophe on a massive scale. We therefore assume that the possibility that substantial changes to the earth's surface could occur very rapidly under such conditions; i.e. massive deposition in some areas, and erosion in others; rapid uplift in some tectonic boundary areas, and rapid subduction in others. That is, much of the geology we observe today (including Mount Everest) can be attributed to the forces generated during the global flood.

Therefore, “the "Mount Everest" problem” is only a “problem” for those tied to the uniformitarian assumption. This is the more popular assumption (especially among secularists) – but it is not fact. Neither position can travel back through time to verify which is correct. In fact, geology has, in recent decades, been moving towards a hybrid of these two assumptions due to increasing observations of local catastrophes affecting large geological changes.

 

[Tristen]

On 12/3/2020 at 2:47 PM, teddyv said:

Hello again, Tristen.

The point of the 'free water' comment was that it has not been verified by other drilling efforts and it appears there are no records from the original work by the Russians.

As to "enough water" in the mantle, that's fair enough comment. However, because there is enough water for the catastrophic Flood view it does require that this locked up water, some as small as single molecules, can be efficiently extracted, mobilized to the surface and then subsequently reabsorbed and recrystallized back in the mantle in less than a year.

I don't want to assume anything, like whether you hold to the Ussher timeline or not, as that has implications on the timing of dispersal of the peoples. 

I don't have it at my hands, but I have heard whole world/earth interpretation could mean within the author/character's knowledge. There are examples in the Bible where kings are reportedly rule over the whole earth - i.e. Cyrus.

 

Turning the crust over would be pretty significant. ;)

Yes, that is evident.

There is no reason it can't be calculated. While I don't have the numbers, this should be pretty standard thermodynamic calculations. I'm sure I've seen it somewhere. But here is a paper by AiG talking about the problems.

As a geologist, I am quite familiar with what I should expect with hydrothermal processes and the physical characteristics of rocks. If you are going to move these volumes of water through the crust, at the plate boundaries (I assume), this will result in very high stresses in the crustal rocks resulting in globally extensive formation of breccias and other examples of brittle deformation. The thermal alteration should be quite evident.

 

The energy dissipation issue is the main one to overcome. Unless you suspend physics.

It is very much an implicit suggestion, which I addressed earlier. Just because you've got the volume does not mean you can access it the way that you need it.

Did a YEC scientist make this discovery? Since they made the hypothesis they should have been out there testing for this. But it appears that it was the so-called secular scientists that made this discovery.

“As to "enough water" in the mantle, that's fair enough comment. However, because there is enough water for the catastrophic Flood view it does require that this locked up water, some as small as single molecules, can be efficiently extracted, mobilized to the surface and then subsequently reabsorbed and recrystallized back in the mantle in less than a year”

The only reason to appeal to the water found in deep rocks is to add emphasis to the fact that the amount of water is nowhere near a problem for the global flood model.

The water stored in deep rocks is largely irrelevant if we permit the reasonable assumption that the massive forces invoked by a global flood had the power to reshape the surface of the earth. That would mean the amount of observed water currently stored in the world's oceans is more than sufficient to account for a global flood.

So on a somewhat irrelevant point - even if I did make the suggestion you claim (which I did not, but for the sake of argument, if I did), it would only “require” that some of the water be “recrystallized back in the mantle”. The original source of the water is immaterial. Given the extreme geological turmoil likely to have resulted from such a calamity, it is not a great leap of credulity to assume increased contact between water and molten rock – especially since we have found water locked away inside those rocks (so there must be some mechanism to accomplish this).

 

“I don't want to assume anything, like whether you hold to the Ussher timeline or not, as that has implications on the timing of dispersal of the peoples”

I did not appeal to anyone else's “timeline”. I presented a crude argument based on two pieces of information derived from the Bible. I concluded it to be unlikely that humanity had spread across the “globe” in 14 generations given, a) a starting population of 3 reproducing couples in a primitive, post-flood world, and b) given the stated human tendency to congregate rather than disperse. Therefore, “all the nations/lands” (or “all the world”) spoken of in Genesis 41:57 would primarily be limited to peoples residing in the Middle East and Africa.

 

“I don't have it at my hands, but I have heard whole world/earth interpretation could mean within the author/character's knowledge”

Which Author/author?

The Bible is God's Word. I would therefore not expect exaggerations rising to the level of error or deceit.

 

“There are examples in the Bible where kings are reportedly rule over the whole earth”

This is different to the above 'author limitation' claim.

This is more about context, and how much room for sensible, reasonable interpretation is permitted. For example, a king's claim to “rule over the whole earth” pertains to influence over humanity. It would therefore be perfectly reasonable to assume the author means authority extending to every known centre of human population (i.e. towns, cities and nations) – i.e. the king's authority extended to everywhere that humans had dispersed at the time. For example, if humans had not yet dispersed to the Americas, the king was still ruler “over the whole earth” - even though technically the king's influence did not really extend across the whole planet.

I think there is far less room for interpretation licence in Genesis 7-8; given that these passages are describing the natural extent of the flood (which is not limited by human dispersal). That is, the flood covered all the earth, including every high hill, and destroying all flesh. And God promises that such a disaster would never be repeated. The context therefore narrows the scope of credible interpretation. We would essentially be saying that - when God said, 'the flood covered all the earth, including every high hill, destroying all flesh', what He really meant was 'the flood covered only a region of the earth, including some local hills, and killed only those creatures in the vicinity'. And when God promised that such a flood would never happen again, what He really meant was, 'maybe there'll be some similar floods here and there'.

I'm personally not comfortable giving myself that much interpretation leeway. In fact I think that sets quite a dangerous hermeneutical precedent.

 

“Yes, that is evident”

It is important that my catastrophic paradigm is recognised – because, as with all models, my model is only rationally obligated to be logically self-consistent. It would therefore be irrational to judge my model according to a contrary premise (such as uniformitarianism). As noted in my response to @Saved.One.by.Grace's comments, you have to be able to make that logical distinction before you can properly (objectively) consider the opposing perspective.

 

“But here is a paper by AiG talking about the problems”

Yep – it is a developing model about an historical event we can not observe. Pretty-much all historical models have their challenges to overcome. Yours and my links both demonstrate that creationist scientists are honestly scrutinising and debating what has been proposed.

 

“As a geologist, I am quite familiar with what I should expect with hydrothermal processes and the physical characteristics of rocks. If you are going to move these volumes of water through the crust, at the plate boundaries (I assume), this will result in very high stresses in the crustal rocks resulting in globally extensive formation of breccias and other examples of brittle deformation. The thermal alteration should be quite evident”

You are proposing to know what would be the outcome of events that were not scientifically observed – and for which the mechanisms are still being investigated/prposed. Have we even observed breccias forming – so that we can claim with scientific confidence to know how they form? Is there an upper limit to the fragment sizes produced by a rapid uplift event? Or is it possible that larger fragments were moved away from the site, or further fragmented before solidification so that they look like the breccias we commonly find? Is it possible that we simply have not found the relevant breccias yet because they remain hidden in the geology? Is it possible that you are wrong, and that such rapid uplift would not necessarily produce breccias? How rapid is 'rapid' (i.e. was the uplift sudden, or did it occur more slowly over the 300+ days of the flood) – and what impact would that have on breccia formation and heat distribution etc.?

Even if we had a complete, robust model that explained everything, that would not mean history necessarily happened that way (i.e. with applying the logic fallacy called Affirming the Consequent). That is simply the primary logical limitation of investigating the past. Likewise, current challenges to the model do not logically preclude the model from having the basics correct. Therefore, no one is obligated to your speculations regarding what we should “expect” to find. There are too many unknowns to justify that degree of confidence.

 

“The energy dissipation issue is the main one to overcome. Unless you suspend physics”

Right – it's a challenge. But it does not logically necessitate that the model and it's fundamental premise is impossible.

I don't know what your position is on Standard Cosmology or Common Ancestry, but both of these models still face massive (maybe even physics suspending) challenges that are yet to be explained. Nevertheless, these models are not discarded. The challenges are merely considered to be things we have not figured out yet.

 

“It is very much an implicit suggestion, which I addressed earlier. Just because you've got the volume does not mean you can access it the way that you need it”

I don't “need” to “access” anything. No one (to my knowledge) has claimed that the flood was sourced in water locked up in rocks. Though it is possible that some of the locked up water found its way into the rocks as a result of contact between flood water and molten rock. Though even that is unnecessary to account for the amount of water required for a global flood model.

 

“Did a YEC scientist make this discovery? Since they made the hypothesis they should have been out there testing for this. But it appears that it was the so-called secular scientists that made this discovery”

This is specious – and irrelevant.

The facts were reported, and global-flood advocates noted that the reported facts fit readily into the global flood model. Or are we now prohibited from using publicly reported facts if we did not find them ourselves?