Apparently Faith found the video to be interesting. This is a bit surprising, since it demolishes her YEC view. But I do agree that the video is interesting. It goes into the history of geologist's thoughts about floods.
The date of the presentation was March 24, 2015. I assume Faith must only have posted the video because she thought she had a ready response in her The Objection of Not Enought Water for the Flood blog post. Montgomery talked about enough water beginning around the 30 minute mark, but Faith's blog post wanders across different topics. I'll comment a little.
I'd respond that reason is fallen in this fallen world and there is no reason to think our own minds can be trusted to arrive at the truth about anything, especially something historical where we don't have independent evidence to support the theories.
I wonder how Faith reasons in this world of fallen reason.
We should always distrust our own minds and suppose that we simply haven't solved the problem yet, because yes, Nature does definitely have to conform to the Bible in the end.
And what of St. Augustine's two books, the world and the Bible, both written by God and therefore in complete concordance? Did Faith trust her mind and reason as she wrote those words?
He gives three reasons to doubt the Biblical Flood. The first is that there was not enough water to cover the high mountains such as the Himalayas. part of the answer to that is that the Himalayas and other high mountains weren't there before the Flood. How high the pre=Flood mountains were I guess we can't know but certainly they would have been a lot lower than the current highest.
Where is this distrust of her own mind of which she spoke? I detect no uncertainty here. The Himalayas weren't there before the flood. Period. Discussion over.
The idea that time sorted itself into straight flat rocks of separated sediments is absurd on the face of it,...
Back to the Montgomery's objection that there isn't enough water on the Earth for such a Flood to have occurred.
Just a quick clarification. Montgomery wasn't raising his own objections but was describing the objections raised by natural philosophers back in the 17th and 18th centuries.
I won't comment on the rest, but here's a shout out to Faith. It's good to see she's keeping her mind active.
If religion must be a part of human thought (whether it should or not is a different discussion) then maybe it should concern itself less with subjects like geology and history and more with subjects like ethics and philosophy?
Religion is concerned with lording it over humanity enforcing their superior god. It does this not by arguing philosophy and ethics but by violently insisting their majikal fantasy stories are true.
The power of religion is not in its philosophy or ethics but in its ability to convince the gullible their majikal fairytales are real. Gotta twist that flud geology to be in their majikal favor else they can’t so easily extort your money in exchange for your soul.