Destructivity of Noah's Flood, Palaeoenvironmental Deductions, How I Differ from CMI

I regard CMI (url creation.com) as a highly useful resource, to be used critically.

Every single criticism of them voiced here on this or that article by them should be taken as implicitly endorsing 95 % of their articles apart from those.

When I don't write in their direct praise, it's a bit to keep internet free from blog posts and comments adding up to nothing more than "I agree" - but I very often do. Not make blog posts saying I agree, but I often do agree.

Today is one of the days when I don't quite do so.

https://creation.com/was-noahs-flood-too-destructive
https://creation.com/paleoenvironmental-deductions
https://creation.com/paleoenvironments-and-the-bible

Waves destroying the Ark? Well, how do we know they would? Unless this is modelled with respect to the Ark, there really isn’t a way to know. And what modelling has been done suggests the Ark was very stable (Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway). Besides, was the Ark simply subject to the vicissitudes of the Flood, or was God looking out for it? Clearly He was looking out for the Ark. The question is how involved He had to be to make sure the Ark was safe. Maybe the Ark was sufficient to survive the Flood without any special providential ordering of things or miracles. Or, God may have simply providentially arranged circumstances so that Ark in a relatively calm region of the waters. Or, of course, He could’ve provided some level of supernatural aid to protect the Ark, from an angel or two dispersing a few waves as needed to a constant ‘bubble’ of protection for the entire Flood. Again, we know too little of what happened to say with any clarity.

I think the level would generally be "providential". Waves would not have destroyed the Ark, as it was floating like a cork, but vulcanos erupting could have boiled all of the crew and living cargo to "Hadaean".

On the other hand, while miracles cannot be ruled out (especially I think there is one in coming out from the Ark, Genesis 8:13), we need not presume direct miracles for providential guiding of the Ark away from vulcanos. Just as the weakness in formation of the Persians on the other bank of Granikos was providential to Alexander conquering the East and helping to prepare the Gospel (his intention and God's were both fulfilled).

In other words, I think we could dare to be a bit more precise than Shaun Doyle dared.

Are some of the processes too quick and devastating? First, different processes were happening in different places; just because conditions during the Flood may be unliveable in some times and places doesn’t mean they were in all times and places. The intensity of the catastrophic conditions would’ve varied in time and space during the Flood year. For instance, oceanic crust wasn’t being created at metres/second rates in the areas around Yellowstone National Park.

The precise reason why I think cavemen already buried could have been preserved. If they were in caves, they were allready off the surface of the earth. Hence, I believe Neanderthals and Denisovans were pre-Flood races, and Erectus, Heidelbergensis, Antecessor aliases for Denisovan. These could even be the Nephelim (Heidelbergensis is more robust than Neanderthals).

Also the precise reason why I think we could with some reasonable security make a pre-Flood map from the greater environmental features (notably the main river valleys of the four rivers), and from biotopes, land or sea. There is another reason for it too. If the Cetotherium maicopicum had been swimming far away from the tectonic coordinates of today's Maikop, we could not have in Maikop by the Belaia a "Holotype (IBP S144, S131, S142, S154, S125, S126, S128, S130):partial skeleton". Even the partial skull of Cetotheriopsis lintianus would probably have arrived in much smaller fragments if it had been living far away from Linz. Now, certainly, these whales could have been transported 500 km, but they weren't, since if they had, they would not have been arriving in bits and pieces still identifiable as whales. If we don't have more whales from the Flood, part of them may have survived, we still have whales, and part have been transported in mudmixed fastflowing water for 500 km and arrived in non-identifiable shapes. If we find the means of making palaeoichthyological observations in Luga which is 146.5 km from St. Petersburg, Luga was sea in the pre-Flood world.

Hence, I believe as soon as we use terms like Permian or Eocene not of diverse layers of pure stone on the same place, but of fossil bearing and land vertebrate fossil bearing layers, we are dealing with the surface of the earth when the Flood struck and with biotopes arranged locally. And I believe Frat was flowing reverse modern Euphrates, through modern Black Sea, reverse modern Danube, over modern Rhine, Thames and Liffey into modern St. Lawrence River.

I'll link to an article - first in a series of five - where rise of mountains post-Flood is modelled over time, taking Himalayas as a very clear example of post-Flood only mountains:

Himalayas ... how fast did they rise?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/05/himalayas-how-fast-did-they-rise.html

My model predicted a rise so slow that pre-Babel human habitation would have been impossible, and it turns out any definitely post-Flood habitation is also post-Babel (post-carbon dated 8600 BC).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Rufus of Rome
28.XI.2020

(It is also St. Sosthenes, today. Apud Corinthum natalis sancti Sosthenis, ex beati Pauli Apostoli discipulis; cujus mentionem facit idem Apostolus Corinthiis scribens. Ipse autem Sosthenes, ex principe Synagogae conversus ad Christum, fidei suae primordia, ante Gallionem Proconsulem acriter verberatus, praeclaro initio consecravit. Romae sancti Rufi, quem, cum omni familia sua, Christi Martyrem Diocletianus fecit.)