[fishtank]

From the article:

Figure 5. A schematic of the Uinta Mountains rising about 12,000 m (40,000 ft) out of the floodwater (drawn by Mrs. Melanie Richard).

The covering of Mount Everest ‘challenge’—answered

Many consider the height of Mount Everest at 8,848 metres (29,029 ft—Figure 4) a fatal flaw for the Genesis Flood.

How could the floodwater have topped the mountains, they ask? Even if the ocean floor was raised to sea level, the present water on the earth would be only 2,700 metres (8,800 ft) deep, one-third the depth needed to cover Mount Everest. Differential vertical tectonics as the floodwater was draining provides the answer,10 because the mountains were pushed up as a result of the Flood, by way of upward vertical tectonics.

It is clear that the mountains were once under the ocean because the sedimentary rocks that form the tops of most mountains contain marine fossils. For example, Mount Everest is topped with marine crinoid (sea lily) fossils embedded in limestone.11

This means that Mount Everest and the other high mountains in our present world, with their sedimentary rocks and fossils, rose up out of the floodwater during the later stages of the Flood. Figure 5 illustrates how, as the floodwater drained, the Uinta Mountains of the western United States rose about 12,000 metres (40,000 ft) compared with the same type of rock in the basins to the north and south, which sank with other sedimentary rocks filling the basins (formations 5–7, Figure (5d)).

[dangus]

So in addition to a great flood, there was also a collapse of the ocean floor and extremely rapid (hundreds of feet per day) uplifting of continents?

[dangus]

The most immediate challenge this presents is that the Quartzite is solid. The illustration suggests the Quartzite was pre-existing: Did the solid mass bend as a plastic, moving many feet a day, without being destroyed by those forces?

Also, how did fossils become embedded within the formations 1 through 4? And why do the sequence of formation numbers correspond to the supposed natural history according to the old-earth hypothesis?

[PrairieLady2]

The earth is also full of under water aquifers. Some of the water came from ‘’the deep’’ and then went back there.

Why scientific explanations for things of ‘faith’? Because when it comes to the things of the one true God in all the earth, faith isn’t irrational. Faith is the EVIDENCE of things not seen. There is EVIDENCE of a flood we haven’t seen. Enacted by a God we usually don’t see, but he leaves evidence in the earth, all creation, and in the witness of men and writings.

It’s the interpretation of that evidence that can get a bit messed up. Let’s say that God made several variations of an animal, each with a different purpose, but containing similarities with one like it. Man comes along and in his pride and arrogance with his unbelief, decides to call it...evolution.

Science isn’t always wrong, but men frequently are. Some scientists demand that we take their word on faith, too!

Maybe the earth was smaller in the past than it is now. Is that possible? In My opinion, it’s possible.

Consider the possibility:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U