Does The Flood Add up?

This is the basic idea promoted by the rather wierd hybrid Old Earth Literalists spear headed by Hugh Ross (Home - Reasons to Believe)They are much more accepting of the scientific status quo yet go through a number of mental gymnastics to try to still show the Bible is literal such as local floods, progressive creation, etc.The basic position for the flood is that it was regional and did in fact wipe out the whole world from humanity's "perspective". Why they work so hard to try to hang onto the flood yet totally abandon the geneologies and other aspects of the text seems strange to me. They take a rather weird kind of hybrid position that, while better, IMO is still as unscientific as YECism.Realizing that the Bible is not inerrant is at least a much more consistent position on the EvC spectrum.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

What a great point! Why the heck would the marsupials and monotremes go to the only place where all the fossils are found? Maybe they smelled their dead ancestors buried underground?I would LOVE for a YEC to try to explain that one. That is going to take some kind of serious mental distortions.As if the flood couldn't get any more refuted. Dang.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)