Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.

If the olive trees and grapevines had some non-magical but still imaginary properties before the flood that allowed them to survive the flood... why not the animals too? Why couldn't the pre-flood super-cows hold their breaths for a year? It would have saved Noah a lot of carpentry.

How can there be "beneficial conditions" at the bottom of a flood? They would have been under fifteen cubits of water.

The flood wasn't abating the whole time. The waters prevailed for 150 days. Have creationists bothered to do an experiment to test whether an olive tree can survive under water for 150 days?

That isn't what Genesis 1:9 says. It says the waters were gathered together in one place, not the land. There could have been thousands of land masses - and not surprisingly, there are. Genesis 1:2 doesn't say that.

The Bible doesn't say that it was. You'd have to twist what the Bible says to create any consilience with science.The OP suggests several specific things that we should see if the flood really happened. The age of the earth isn't particularly relevant, nor is any other consilience with science.

Nobody wrote about gravity before gravity was discovered. Yet it seems to be a reasonable assumption that gravity has always behaved in the same way.The default position would be that the plates have always moved in a similar way to the way they move now. You would need some concrete reason to assume otherwise.Edited by ringo, : Speling.

REASONABLE assumption - i.e. an assumption based on reason.You have no reason to assume that the tectonic plates moves at a fundamentally different rate at some time in the past. That would be an UNreasonable assumption.

Wrong. An assumption is based on the conclusion of another investigation. For example, we can "assume" that the sun will rise in the east because that's where we have always observed it rising. Stonehenge was built on the basis of the assumption that celestial events will continue as they have been observed. That's not a "reason". It's an empty speculation.You are also wrong about what the Bible says.

As I've already pointed out to you, the Bible doesn't say that. It says the water was in one place, not the land. The Bible doesn't say that either. When the earth was divided in the time of Peleg (Genesis 10:25), it clearly refers to the division of nations (Genesis 10:32), which clearly refers to the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11).It has nothing to do with continental drift. The Bible didn't predict continental drift. Nobody thought of interpreting it that way until after continental drift was confirmed by science. You're trying to reverse-engineer agreement of the Bible with science.And continental drift has nothing to do with what we would see if the Flood had happened. If you believed in Zeus you'd be wrong, whether I thought Zeus was a myth or not.Edited by ringo, : Spelding.

Of course it CAN be translated that way and it always IS translated that way. Can you cite any translation that agrees with you?The translators don't ignore the context like you do. As I pointed out, Genesis 10:32 uses the same word "divided" and clearly associates the division with the families of the sons of Noah. It was the people who were divided, not the land.But even IF the Bible mentioned continental drift, it is NOT something that we would expect to be associated with the Flood.

Your English needs a lot of work. Separate, divided and split all mean the same thing, which the translators understood even if you do not. You can't just ignore the context. Genesis 10 starts with the generations of Noah and ends with the generations of Noah. Verse 5 says that the Gentiles were divided by their tongues. The next chapter tells how the nations were divided by their tongues at Babel.Two chapters talking about division of people and no mention at all about division of continents. And nothing to do with the Flood.

Faith's own source says that her map happened millions of years ago. It's funny how she cherry-picks the parts she likes and ignores the rest. It's right when it agrees with her misinterpretation of the Bible but the same source is wrong when it disagrees with her other misinterpretation of the Bible.