A question about the flood myth, baraminology, and Pangaea

[Jenny A]

If the were a world wide flood, there would be a world wide sedimentary flood layer all at the same level.  There isn't.  Therefore,  no world wide flood.  There are many, many other impossibilitissues associated with the Genesis  flood story, but the biggest unanswered question is where is the sediment layer?

who says? The d-bags who study localized floods? people who study tsunamis? What do all floods have in common (except a global flood)???

Yes, those "d-bags" who call themselves geologists.  Or are only geologists who study floods "d-bags?" That's childish even for you.

A body of water moves to a previously dry area, and along the way picks up and deposits a sedimentary flood layer. why? because a body of water over takes dry land in a localized area. This would be like busting open you above ground pool and it washing all your stuff into your neighbors back yard.

So how does a global flood differ?

No one body of water over takes localized dry land. Water does not rush in from one direction and carries and push your crap to another.

No the ground (all of it) pukes up water. this is more like being on a boat that takes 40 Days and 40 nights to sink. Very little was move or destroyed, why? the water did not come in and wash everything out, it slowly crept up till the world was full

The titanic sank in hours and their are pictures of dinner plates/china still in their cuboards, of all sorts of things not nailed down remaining undisturbed why? Because in those parts of the ship water did not rush in, it crept in and filled/ stabilized everything when it did.

That is why your sediment argument does not apply. It does not account for the conditions set fourth by the account. The sediment argument pushes or rather forces the idea the flood happened like a tsunami nothing in the bible remotely records that.

what else you got?

There are more problems with your explanation then with the lack of of a sedimentary layer.  The first problem is Genesis itself which says:  on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights."  "Bursting forth" doesn't sound slow and gradual to me.  And then there's that pesky forty days and nights of rain.  So if Genesis is accurate there was more to it that water gradually rising out of the ground.

But let's look at what that "gradual" rise would mean.  To cover Mt. Everest the water would have to rise from sea level to 29,000 feet in 40 days (960 hours).  That would be a rate of over 30 feet an hour.  Over 16 and a half feet an hour if you only want to cover Mt. Ararat at 16,800 feet. You don't think that much water percolating out of the soil that fast would leave a mark?  Really?  You can say more of it was rain, but then you are back the lack of evidence of flooding.

But Genesis doesn't say it percolates, it bursts forth" out of the "springs of the deeps" whatever those might be.  That suggests localized springs not all over percolation.  But wherever it come from it would have run downhill from there, because that what water does, it runs downhill.  And even if it all welled up from land at or below sea level, or from beneath the oceans, you still have to account for forty days of world wide rain leaving no trace.  In most of the world two or three days of steady rain creates flooding of a more conventional sort.  So, yes, I would expect to see evidence of something like conventional flooding world wide.  The rain fell world wide according to the story for 40 days and nights.  That's a lot of streams, lakes etc. slipping their banks--all of them in fact.

And then there's the shear volume of water necessary.  Others have already covered the rather major problems of where did an extra 3 billion cubic kilometers of water come from and where did it go.  My question to you is if all that water exited the core of earth and then sat on top of it for 150 days before beginning to recede, don't you think the shear weight of all that water would leave a mark on the soil?  That's a hell of a lot of pressure.

Of and then there's salt.  Did it all stay handily in the oceans instead of spreading out and salting the waters of the flood? Otherwise that sedimentary layer we're missing ought to be salty too.