Harley quote

No, not a 40 day event, which is another misnomer. An approximate 1 year event. Runaway subduction of sea floor hypothesized, but not without data, i.e. young sea floor from spreading,  as mechanism for flooding of shallow land masses and driving them apart. Volcanoes actively involved in later stages, called megasequences of deposition of layers. No conflict with observed rock formations, and elegant solutions to problems with classic unifromitarian theory, i.e. better explanation of overthrusts. 

And again this an awesomely representative post of how people will twist information to suit their outcome. The good Dr. uses where it suits him an absolutely literal interpretation of the bible.  However, when it does not suit him, he makes it a whole year event.  This is the same thing audiophiles do. If an "expert" says something that disagrees with their world view, they totally discount him/her. If they say something that agrees, then they will quote it ininfinitum.


If volcanoes were spewing enough to create those levels of layer deposition, everyone would be dead, many times over unless purely a localized event (even continent wide) and we know when those were. 


Runaway subduction of sea floor ... lovely, we will just ignore the massive tsunamis that would result, which with that level of subduction even surface waves would be enormous.  Of course, if there is massive subduction, water does not just appear out of no where, so that only causes localized flooding, but if you are going to ignore reality why not go all in.

“There were these giant reptiles called dinosaurs that actually did go on the ark..."

'No one suggests that "dinosaurs" were on the ark. Reptiles, my friend.'

What am I missing in this flood?

I believe there was a global flood at some point somewhere. I am just not sure how big that globus was.

Not having read the above mentioned book, are the findings that support global flood from all over the Earth, or they are limited in locations? Anybody knows?

A person's religious beliefs and views should never be conflated with their, say, audio views.  To use that as some kind of proof that since one is questionable or suspect, the other might as well be is ridiculous. 

Or, to go after someone for their beliefs because you just lost an argument on another matter is a just plain dumb thing to do.

What's next, those who believe that someone lost a legitimate election are not to be believed when they comment on an audio related matter? This isn't a slippery slope, it's a giant downhill skiing event. Have fun.

All the best,
Nonoise