Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[Audie]

I am wondering about how sea shells ended up on mountain tops.
Christianity (rather Christendom) will Not collapse on her own.
The ' powers that be ' will surprisingly turn on her.
Perhaps a bad economy can make their wealth look attractive to the political realm and look easy for their taking.

Pretty simple. Seashells get buried and fossilized.

The rock is then shoved up by tectonic forces,
forming a mountain.
thrust mountains - Google Search:

thrust mountains - Google Search:

thrust mountains - Google Search:

I climbed a small mountain in SE Asia, and
at the top, there was exposed rock the whole
top of the mountain.

Or kind of. It was coral. I dont know how the
mountain building forces there work, but,
I am real sure the coral did not grow up there.

On the way back down by a different route,
there was a lot more exposed, from I guess
quarrying for lime for cement. They were
digging out ancient coral. It was not just
at the top.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Another fun detail is, IF one were to dump a load of
dredgings with full of clams etc, over the peaks of some
mountains, how long might one expect that mud to stay
there? Is it going to (really-really) turn to stone up there?

Anyway, watch and see if our Flood guy will be able
to admit that even this one little detail about "live"
clams is just wrong. It in no way invalidates the
flood story, so it is not like the last barrier that prevents
the collapse of Christianity.

In his words-

Who can I trust to give me an honest answer? Now, to those I've asked: if you think I'm wrong, tell me.

He has been told he is wrong, and why. He challenges
others to be honest; lets see how he himself does.

I can imagine that it would be gone after a time, from erosion. I couldn't guess how long it would take to become stone if it were able to stay in place. I wouldn't be around. Without pressure on it, I am not certain that it could turn to stone at all. Certainly not 4,000 years.

I cannot say how honest a person he is, but it would not surprise if dishonesty rears its ungly head in the discussion. He certainly believes he is the only honest person when it comes to someone that disagrees with him on the facts and challenges his belief. He is very closed-minded when that happens.

 

[Audie]

It takes a lot of pressure to turn mud to stone.

I excpect mud would freeze up there on everest.

You will sometimes see river or beach gravel
pressed into stone, so much pressure sometimes
that what had been pebbles are flattened into
streaks.

See "metaconglomerate".

 

[nPeace]

If you are saying thousands of years then yes. We have a good Idea of the geography of the world and also a good idea of the animal adaptions. That is not hard. What is impossible is to explain how all of the species of animals some with quite limited ability to travel could get to the ark or fit on the ark or know how to get to the ark etc. Most plant life would have been eliminated too. Noah's ark is a myth teaching its followers to uphold the Jewish laws and morals. It is not to be interpreted as what actually happened.

Maybe you misunderstood me, or maybe you are just thinking that your pretty good idea is true.
Your pretty good idea may seem pretty, but it's an idea nonetheless.

What seems impossible to explain, is only that way because you are projecting the pretty good idea onto the Biblical account. So that would create a problem, because in your mind, you have already created the geography of Noah's time, to look like your idea.

Ii hope you see my point.

I see, you are pointing out how open minded scientists are to knew information which expands the depth of our understanding of the natural world. They are not closed minded and try to bend inaccurate information to prove something they cannot prove. That is good of you.

I think you are mistaken. I was not pointing out how open minded scientists are to new information.
Why would I do such a thing?
Honestly, do you think all scientists are open minded? Let's be honest and realistic.

I was pointing out how obviously inaccurate they are in trying to determine things they cannot possibly know.
Yet persons act like scientists are gods and science is gospel.
It's disturbing that some even try to replace the Bible with it.

It does not actually. If you wipe out the plant with a flood there are some species adapted to Islands as is well known in ecological studies but there are even more that are not. Using island biology does not prove anything about the flood if you are familiar with botany or ecology. You clearly do not understand what would happen to the majority of plants that would not survive and yet are here today. How fast do you think the alps, rocky mountains, Appalachian mountains or Himalayan mountains formed? Can you give a guess?

What are you saying?
I am not getting the sense of your argument, so I will just say...
Seeds are carried. Seeds grow where they will. Seeds are in the earth.

Sorry I am not getting you. Perhaps you can clarify.

 

[Misunderstood]

Uh .yes, I have.

By observation..
Do you notice much weathering of the features on mountain ranges like the Himalayas, the Alps, etc.? I and many others don't. (The rocks are very old, fine. But the features they've formed from being uplifted, are new-looking.) We see crisp, well-defined features; with the extreme elements they endure....if they're millions of years old, they would be rounded stumps by now!
Do these features seem old to you, @nPeace ? What about you, @URAVIP2ME ? What about you, @Misunderstood ?

Who else can I trust to give me an honest answer? Now, to those I've asked: if you think I'm wrong, tell me.

Some features on some ranges, do look old, ie., have experienced much erosion....they must have been uplifted prior to the Flood, and afterward, raised higher. Or lowered, if they existed on land directly above those "vast springs of the watery deep'", which (during and after the Flood) would've formed "the valleys" mentioned in Psalms 104.

We should always be open to any possibilities to increase accurate knowledge!
Ex.: The Geological Society of London - Mountain Roots

I'm not to familiar with mountain peaks their formation or how they would erode. I only know from my own observations and what little knowledge I have. But I have felt that the earth's surface is to defined to be the millions of years that most features are claimed to be by some. As far as the tall mountain peaks that go above the freeze thaw line, I would feel the water entering cracks and creases would thaw and then refreeze causing an undercutting of the peak at that point, so I feel we would see more undermining of the peak, or the peak completely falling at some point.

But in working with soils, I feel the leaching effect, or at least the soils in the Pacific Northwest would become so deficient after the time period the area here is supposed to be that I do not feel many plants would be capable of growing. This is a problem I do not feel has been addressed sufficiently, but as the nutrients are being leached out into the oceans I feel that after time all nutrients will be in the oceans and dry land will be mostly depleted.

The other thing that has caused concern is the 'Mariana Trench' again I do not claim to know much about it to make an informed argument, but wounder how it could be so deep for so long with all the tides and currents, I feel it would be filled in by now.

 

[nPeace]

Pretty simple. Seashells get buried and fossilized.

The rock is then shoved up by tectonic forces,
forming a mountain.
thrust mountains - Google Search:

thrust mountains - Google Search:

thrust mountains - Google Search:

I climbed a small mountain in SE Asia, and
at the top, there was exposed rock the whole
top of the mountain.

Or kind of. It was coral. I dont know how the
mountain building forces there work, but,
I am real sure the coral did not grow up there.

On the way back down by a different route,
there was a lot more exposed, from I guess
quarrying for lime for cement. They were
digging out ancient coral. It was not just
at the top.

Are you saying the seashells were fossilized in the ocean?
Oldest Animal Fossils Found in Lakes, Not Oceans
Conventional wisdom has it that the first animals evolved in the ocean.

Now researchers studying ancient rock samples in South China have found that the first animal fossils are preserved in ancient lake deposits, not in marine sediments as commonly assumed.

Was the coral fossilized, or growing?

 

[Audie]

I'm not to familiar with mountain peaks their formation or how they would erode. I only know from my own observations and what little knowledge I have. But I have felt that the earth's surface is to defined to be the millions of years that most features are claimed to be by some. As far as the tall mountain peaks that go above the freeze thaw line, I would feel the water entering cracks and creases would thaw and then refreeze causing an undercutting of the peak at that point, so I feel we would see more undermining of the peak, or the peak completely falling at some point.

But in working with soils, I feel the leaching effect, or at least the soils in the Pacific Northwest would become so deficient after the time period the area here is supposed to be that I do not feel many plants would be capable of growing. This is a problem I do not feel has been addressed sufficiently, but as the nutrients are being leached out into the oceans I feel that after time all nutrients will be in the oceans and dry land will be mostly depleted.

The other thing that has caused concern is the 'Mariana Trench' again I do not claim to know much about it to make an informed argument, but wounder how it could be so deep for so long with all the tides and currents, I feel it would be filled in by now.

If you are concerned about why the trenches do not fill it,
you might find some reading on plate tectonics to be
fascinating and very informative.

The ocean side of the trenches are like a great conveyor belt,
tie ocean floor sliding under the continent. The trenches are
actively formed, not filling in.

A completely cool thing found in the Pacific is islands, like
Tahiti, which are volcanic. (Hawaii, too)

Over the years, they erode away, while also sinking from
their own weight. Eventually, waves can break over them,
and the become flattened across the top. Sinking further,
your get an atoll. Eventually, the volacanoe sinks to where
the coral all dies.

On the sides of Pacific ocean trenches, there are
flat topped volcanoes with long dead coral, now
sitting at an angle as they slowly are carried into
the trench.

The oldest mountains of the Hawaiian chain are
similarly now underwater.

Cool stuff!

atoll formation - Google Search:

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm not to familiar with mountain peaks their formation or how they would erode. I only know from my own observations and what little knowledge I have. But I have felt that the earth's surface is to defined to be the millions of years that most features are claimed to be by some. As far as the tall mountain peaks that go above the freeze thaw line, I would feel the water entering cracks and creases would thaw and then refreeze causing an undercutting of the peak at that point, so I feel we would see more undermining of the peak, or the peak completely falling at some point.

But in working with soils, I feel the leaching effect, or at least the soils in the Pacific Northwest would become so deficient after the time period the area here is supposed to be that I do not feel many plants would be capable of growing. This is a problem I do not feel has been addressed sufficiently, but as the nutrients are being leached out into the oceans I feel that after time all nutrients will be in the oceans and dry land will be mostly depleted.

The other thing that has caused concern is the 'Mariana Trench' again I do not claim to know much about it to make an informed argument, but wounder how it could be so deep for so long with all the tides and currents, I feel it would be filled in by now.

I'm curious....do you think what you posted is of any value? Do you think it has any use beyond "this is just what I think"?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am wondering about how sea shells ended up on mountain tops.
Christianity (rather Christendom) will Not collapse on her own.
The ' powers that be ' will surprisingly turn on her.
Perhaps a bad economy can make their wealth look attractive to the political realm and look easy for their taking.

The mountain tops used to be ocean floors until they buckled and folded and uplifted and became mountains over time.

 

[Audie]

I'm curious....do you think what you posted is of any value? Do you think it has any use beyond "this is just what I think"?

It for sure could be, if it leads-as it may-to his looking into
some of his concerns.

 

[nPeace]

Uh .yes, I have.

By observation..
Do you notice much weathering of the features on mountain ranges like the Himalayas, the Alps, etc.? I and many others don't. (The rocks are very old, fine. But the features they've formed from being uplifted, are new-looking.) We see crisp, well-defined features; with the extreme elements they endure....if they're millions of years old, they would be rounded stumps by now!
Do these features seem old to you, @nPeace ? What about you, @URAVIP2ME ? What about you, @Misunderstood ?

Who else can I trust to give me an honest answer? Now, to those I've asked: if you think I'm wrong, tell me.

Some features on some ranges, do look old, ie., have experienced much erosion....they must have been uplifted prior to the Flood, and afterward, raised higher. Or lowered, if they existed on land directly above those "vast springs of the watery deep'", which (during and after the Flood) would've formed "the valleys" mentioned in Psalms 104.

We should always be open to any possibilities to increase accurate knowledge!
Ex.: The Geological Society of London - Mountain Roots

What'you talking 'bout bro?

I won't be able to tell you anything about features, but there are a few pieces of evidence that argues for the rapid plate tectonic movement, and formation of igneous rock, and of mountain ranges.
https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html
Before the 1960s, most geologists were adamant that the continents were stationary. A handful promoted the notion that the continents had moved (continental drift), but they were accused by the majority of indulging in pseudo-scientific fantasy. Today, that opinion has reversed - plate tectonics, incorporating continental drift, is the ruling theory. Interestingly, it was a creationist, Antonio Snider, who in 1859 first proposed horizontal movement of continents catastrophically during the Genesis flood.1 The statements in Genesis 1:9-10 about the gathering together of the seas in one place, which implies there was one landmass, influenced his thinking.

Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys predicted that evidence for rapid field reversals would be found in lava flows thin enough to cool in a few weeks. He suggested that such rapid reversals could have happened during Noah's flood. Such evidence for rapid reversals was later found by the respected researchers Coe and Prvot.Their later work confirmed these findings and showed that the magnetic reversals were “astonishingly rapid.”

Dr. John Baumgardner, working at the Los Alamos National Laboratories (New Mexico), has used supercomputers to model processes in the Earth's mantle to show that tectonic plate movement could have occurred very rapidly, and “spontaneously.” This concept is known as catastrophic plate tectonics. At the time of writing, Baumgardner, a creation-scientist, is acknowledged as having developed the world's best 3-D super-computer model of plate tectonics.

There is a model you can use, and there is another here that deals with fold and thrust belt, or geologic fold.

 

[Jose Fly]

https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html

Well there's your first problem....you're trying to get information on geology from "christiananswers", which is the equivalent of relying on the Geological Society of America for information on Christianity. Funny how folks like you would immediately recognize the absurdity of the latter, but are completely oblivious when it comes to the former.

Before the 1960s, most geologists were adamant that the continents were stationary. A handful promoted the notion that the continents had moved (continental drift), but they were accused by the majority of indulging in pseudo-scientific fantasy. Today, that opinion has reversed - plate tectonics, incorporating continental drift, is the ruling theory. Interestingly, it was a creationist, Antonio Snider, who in 1859 first proposed horizontal movement of continents catastrophically during the Genesis flood.1 The statements in Genesis 1:9-10 about the gathering together of the seas in one place, which implies there was one landmass, influenced his thinking.

Hang on a sec.....aren't you creationists always going on and on about how close-minded scientists are, how they're all about maintaining "dogma", and they persecute anyone who deviates even a little from the norm? Yet here you are now citing an example of scientists adjusting their models and explanations, even to the point of agreeing with a creationist!

Your creationist talking points are self-contradictory.

Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys predicted that evidence for rapid field reversals would be found in lava flows thin enough to cool in a few weeks. He suggested that such rapid reversals could have happened during Noah's flood. Such evidence for rapid reversals was later found by the respected researchers Coe and Prvot.Their later work confirmed these findings and showed that the magnetic reversals were “astonishingly rapid.”

Turns out your source is just plain lying (and by extension, so are you).

Coe and Prevot (note the spelling) published an article in 1989 titled "Evidence suggesting extremely rapid field variation during a magnetic reversal". Note the title, and how they specifically wrote about rapid field variation, not rapid reversal. There's a bit more to this (and it doesn't help the creationists), so if anyone is interested I can provide some resources.

Dr. John Baumgardner, working at the Los Alamos National Laboratories (New Mexico), has used supercomputers to model processes in the Earth's mantle to show that tectonic plate movement could have occurred very rapidly, and “spontaneously.” This concept is known as catastrophic plate tectonics. At the time of writing, Baumgardner, a creation-scientist, is acknowledged as having developed the world's best 3-D super-computer model of plate tectonics.

Again, you and your source are not telling the truth, this time lying by omission. Baumgardner did indeed do some modeling of the sort of rapid tectonic movements that would be required for the Biblical flood. However, there was just a slight problem, as Baumgardner stated himself in his creationist article (PDF)....

"Estimates for the present mantle viscosity make tectonic velocities greater than a few centimeters per year implausible. It appears almost essential to conclude the average mantle viscosity during the Flood and probably for many centuries afterward was several orders of magnitude lower than present to allow the large displacements of the continental blocks to their present positions...These observations all point to the need to remove large amounts of heat from extensive bodies of rock in the earth in order to account for the geological change proposed for the Flood. It is the author’s conclusion that this cannot happen within the framework of time-invariant physics." ​

And just in case you didn't catch the significance of that last bit about "this doesn't work within the laws of physics", Baumgardner sums it up at the end...

"Finally, it seems evident that the Flood catastrophe cannot be understood or modeled in terms of time-invariant laws of nature. Intervention by God in the natural order during and after the catastrophe appears to be a logical necessity. Manifestations of the intervention appear to include an enhanced rate of nuclear decay during the event and a loss of thermal energy afterward."​

IOW, none of this works without massive miracles. Funny how neither you nor your source bothered to mention that little fact. But then, that's to be expected given how it's simply impossible to advocate creationism in an honest manner.

But I think what astonishes and fascinates me the most is how folks like you just don't care. Here it's been made abundantly clear that your source is lying, but I guarantee it won't phase you one bit, nor will it cause you to be more careful in the future. Accuracy and honesty don't seem to be qualities that are valued in creationist circles. The only thing that matters is supporting the Bible at all costs.

 

[Audie]

Well there's your first problem....you're trying to get information on geology from "christiananswers", which is the equivalent of relying on the Geological Society of America for information on Christianity. Funny how folks like you would immediately recognize the absurdity of the latter, but are completely oblivious when it comes to the former.


Hang on a sec.....aren't you creationists always going on and on about how close-minded scientists are, how they're all about maintaining "dogma", and they persecute anyone who deviates even a little from the norm? Yet here you are now citing an example of scientists adjusting their models and explanations, even to the point of agreeing with a creationist!

Your creationist talking points are self-contradictory.


Turns out your source is just plain lying (and by extension, so are you).

Coe and Prevot (note the spelling) published an article in 1989 titled "Evidence suggesting extremely rapid field variation during a magnetic reversal". Note the title, and how they specifically wrote about rapid field variation, not rapid reversal. There's a bit more to this (and it doesn't help the creationists), so if anyone is interested I can provide some resources.


Again, you and your source are not telling the truth, this time lying by omission. Baumgardner did indeed do some modeling of the sort of rapid tectonic movements that would be required for the Biblical flood. However, there was just a slight problem, as Baumgardner stated himself in his creationist article (PDF)....

"Estimates for the present mantle viscosity make tectonic velocities greater than a few centimeters per year implausible. It appears almost essential to conclude the average mantle viscosity during the Flood and probably for many centuries afterward was several orders of magnitude lower than present to allow the large displacements of the continental blocks to their present positions...These observations all point to the need to remove large amounts of heat from extensive bodies of rock in the earth in order to account for the geological change proposed for the Flood. It is the author’s conclusion that this cannot happen within the framework of time-invariant physics." ​

And just in case you didn't catch the significance of that last bit about "this doesn't work within the laws of physics", Baumgardner sums it up at the end...

"Finally, it seems evident that the Flood catastrophe cannot be understood or modeled in terms of time-invariant laws of nature. Intervention by God in the natural order during and after the catastrophe appears to be a logical necessity. Manifestations of the intervention appear to include an enhanced rate of nuclear decay during the event and a loss of thermal energy afterward."​

IOW, none of this works without massive miracles. Funny how neither you nor your source bothered to mention that little fact. But then, that's to be expected given how it's simply impossible to advocate creationism in an honest manner.

But I think what astonishes and fascinates me the most is how folks like you just don't care. Here it's been made abundantly clear that your source is lying, but I guarantee it won't phase you one bit, nor will it cause you to be more careful in the future. Accuracy and honesty don't seem to be qualities that are valued in creationist circles. The only thing that matters is supporting the Bible at all costs.

There is a bit of dim amusement in a creationist
presenting a lesson in geology, whatever their source.

Anyone who has done as much as intro to remedial
geology 099 is aware of the history of plate tectonics.
We dont need a politicized creosite version.


Mom commented to me about how her Dad
(who wasa businessman, not a scientist)
discussed with her how Madagascar looks as if it
should fit right up against Africa, etc.

Of course, nobody could explain it, how it
could have happened. LOTS of people noticed,
and wondered.


But the source quoted cannot help but editorialize.

adamant that the continents were stationary. A handful promoted the notion that the continents had moved (continental drift), but they were accused by the majority of indulging in pseudo-scientific fantasy.

This version is wrong, stupid, and offensive.
It was long a topic to talk about; it was just that
nobody could say how it could work, so, no theory.

Oh, and of COURSE it was a creo who said it
happened in the "flood". Interesting? Hardly.

And then, speaking of wild flights of fantasy-

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@nPeace :

Do these peaks look very weathered, ie., with rounded features? Or do they look relatively new (with very little weathering), having crisp, sharply-defined characteristics?

The rocks themselves are old, yes. But these ridges and other features they’ve formed are geologically young-looking.

There are many like this, all over the world!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

1. Explain how salt water fish and fresh water fish could possibly survive in brackish water.
2. Explain how just all the species in the Amazon could fit on such a small ark, much less all the species of the world.
3. Explain how animal from the Americas and Australia made it to the Ark.
4. Explain how Noah had room enough to put food for all those animals for 40 days.
5. Explain how so few people could handle feeding and cleaning up the waste of all the species of the earth each day.
6. Explain why there isn't a uniform level of sediment around the world.
7. Sloths and koalas can only eat very specific plants. How did Noah get those plants?
8. Why is there no evidence for the flood in tree rings?

I could go on and on. A global flood story not only defies basic logic, but ignores the effects of plate tectonics.

 

[Audie]

@nPeace :

Redirect Notice

Do these peaks look very weathered, ie., with rounded features? Or do they look relatively new (with very little weathering), having crisp, sharply-defined characteristics?

The rocks themselves are old, yes. But these ridges and other features they’ve formed are geologically young-looking.

There are many like this, all over the world!

You going to ignore your phony clam claim?

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Maybe you misunderstood me, or maybe you are just thinking that your pretty good idea is true.
Your pretty good idea may seem pretty, but it's an idea nonetheless.

What seems impossible to explain, is only that way because you are projecting the pretty good idea onto the Biblical account. So that would create a problem, because in your mind, you have already created the geography of Noah's time, to look like your idea.

Ii hope you see my point.



I think you are mistaken. I was not pointing out how open minded scientists are to new information.
Why would I do such a thing?
Honestly, do you think all scientists are open minded? Let's be honest and realistic.

I was pointing out how obviously inaccurate they are in trying to determine things they cannot possibly know.
Yet persons act like scientists are gods and science is gospel.
It's disturbing that some even try to replace the Bible with it.



What are you saying?
I am not getting the sense of your argument, so I will just say...
Seeds are carried. Seeds grow where they will. Seeds are in the earth.

Sorry I am not getting you. Perhaps you can clarify.

Yes, seeds can be carried by the wind and establish themselves in new places. The problem with this idea with regards to a global flood, however, is that those seeds would have been submerged in brackish water for at least a year and would not have been viable. No viable seeds...no plants.

 

[Bear Wild]

What'you talking 'bout bro?

I won't be able to tell you anything about features, but there are a few pieces of evidence that argues for the rapid plate tectonic movement, and formation of igneous rock, and of mountain ranges.
https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html
Before the 1960s, most geologists were adamant that the continents were stationary. A handful promoted the notion that the continents had moved (continental drift), but they were accused by the majority of indulging in pseudo-scientific fantasy. Today, that opinion has reversed - plate tectonics, incorporating continental drift, is the ruling theory. Interestingly, it was a creationist, Antonio Snider, who in 1859 first proposed horizontal movement of continents catastrophically during the Genesis flood.1 The statements in Genesis 1:9-10 about the gathering together of the seas in one place, which implies there was one landmass, influenced his thinking.

Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys predicted that evidence for rapid field reversals would be found in lava flows thin enough to cool in a few weeks. He suggested that such rapid reversals could have happened during Noah's flood. Such evidence for rapid reversals was later found by the respected researchers Coe and Prvot.Their later work confirmed these findings and showed that the magnetic reversals were “astonishingly rapid.”

Dr. John Baumgardner, working at the Los Alamos National Laboratories (New Mexico), has used supercomputers to model processes in the Earth's mantle to show that tectonic plate movement could have occurred very rapidly, and “spontaneously.” This concept is known as catastrophic plate tectonics. At the time of writing, Baumgardner, a creation-scientist, is acknowledged as having developed the world's best 3-D super-computer model of plate tectonics.

There is a model you can use, and there is another here that deals with fold and thrust belt, or geologic fold.

Do these people explain the changes in the magnetic field reversals along the Atlantic ocean as the Atlantic expands away from the mid-Atlantic rift? Oh but wait Dr. Russell Humphreys does not agree with all of the evidence for Plate Tectonics. Very creative man distorting geological time just to fit his creationist belief. It is amazing how creationist will twist information with a scientific twist despite it is against all scientific data. Find information from reliable sources but of course you will not be able to.

 

[Misunderstood]

I'm curious....do you think what you posted is of any value? Do you think it has any use beyond "this is just what I think"?

No, I do not think I will win any awards or sell what I wrote for any monetary gain. I did say that it is my opinion that that some features of earth are not as old as some feel it is. So yes "this is just what I think." But, does what anyone say on here have any value beyond what they think and believe?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why do you say the animals could not make the distance and over the distance?
Could it be that you are taking what you know today - that is, the geographic of the earth, the vast varieties of adaptations, etc., and projecting it back thousands of years previous? Why?

It's important to remember, that some things, Jehovah did directly control, like bringing the animals to Noah. (The Bible says that, nothing you or I made up.)

Since Jehovah "brought them to" Noah, is it so hard to figure that Jehovah would take them back to their original habitat? (It is for some, apparently.) Does the Bible have to mention every little aspect He did, in accomplishing His purpose?

Regarding the Grand Canyon: I recall an article years ago stating the carving into its walls by the Colorado River.....or some river.... began 150,000,000 years ago. Now, they've changed their minds, and now say 6 to 10 million ya. ("It fits the evidence better.") We're just saying "about 4,300 to 5,000 ya."

Can fast-moving water cause so much erosion, so quickly? Apparently, from observing the effects of this:

Caltech Geologist Investigates Canyon Carved in Just Three Days in Texas Flood | Caltech

That was just 3 days; imagine what over half-a-year could do!