In Faith's Flood scenario, water somehow pulverizes miles of whatever it was covering the antediluvian landscape down to bedrock. Any material with a mile or more of material above is going to be lithified. Pulverizing lithified material requires a great deal of energy. Here's a video of large and very powerful equipment crushing rock:
Obviously it takes a great deal of energy to crush rock. How could water crush rock? If a high pressure fire hose had been fired at a large rock it would have done nothing. Even after days and days. Here's a video of two guys walking through a blasting fire hose. It blasts them but doesn't hurt them, and it's blasting across grass that somehow doesn't get stripped away. Fire hoses are used to disperse crowds without hurting them:
If a fire hose with all its energy doesn't do much damage to people it's hard to imagine how it could do much damage to rock, so how would a flood have sufficient energy to pulverize rock? It would have to have a great deal of energy and very focused, more like a water jet drill, which fires water filled with abrasive material at up to 100,000 psi:
This is impressive, but very energy intensive and far more than a flood could deliver.
But if a flood somehow did manage to crush millions of cubic miles of rock all around the world in a brief period of days, then it would have required enough energy to melt the world several times over. I'm not even going to bother doing the math, it should be self-evident.
But if anyone doubts this then I'll look up some figures and do the math. I'll find out how much diesel fuel a rock crusher consumes per hour, find the energy content of diesel fuel, find how much volume of rock a rock crusher crushes per hour, estimate how many cubic miles of rock are in the worldwide geologic column, come up with a figure in joules, then calculate the temperature of the now molten Earth.
I feel sympathy and empathy for you as a human being, but your ideas about the flood, and about most things, suck as science. You don't want us to agree with you just to avoid hurting your feelings, right? And you do realize you have arrogant and stubborn streaks combined with a tendency to lash out that create problems for you, right? So your problems here, and probably all throughout your life wherever you encounter opposing views, should come as no surprise to you.
Scientific ideas are examined and analyzed all the time. That's all we're doing here, examining and analyzing your views to see how they measure up as science.
If you read this latest blog entry you can see that Faith feels badly about how things went this time around, but she's caught in a very difficult place that we cannot understand, trapped between two irreconcilable views. On the one hand there is her unwavering faith in the truth of her interpretations of the Bible that tell her the world is young and that a global flood produced all the geology we see today, and on the other hand is the evidence from the real world that says the world is ancient and that the geology we see today took a very long time to happen.
We all agree these two views cannot both be true. Those of us on the science side find the real world to be persistent, uncompromising, and in many ways comprehensible through scientific study. It drives anyone willing to painstakingly follow a chain of evidence toward inescapable conclusions.
Faith believes those who follow this process to conclusions inconsistent with her Biblical interpretations are wrong but can offer no scientific reasons why they are wrong. She says the reasons are obvious to anyone, and she begins by citing a number of reasons, but as each reason is shown to be scientifically untenable she is eventually left only with the declaration, "It's clearly obvious," or sometimes with the dismissive, "Oh, science, blah blah blah, science is wrong." (These quotes are, of course, paraphrases.)
Faith blames us for our refusal to properly consider her evidence and our intractable rejection of the obvious, while we blame her for, well, where does one start? I'm not sure. Certainly Faith is honest and sincere in the extreme, but only by her own highly personal set of rules and guidelines to which we're not really privy. Certainly from the outside her views appear contradictory and delusional, and when she does acknowledge a contradiction it is usually only to dismiss it with a claim it will be worked out one day. If one mentions that not one of these contradictions has been resolved since Henry Morris published The Genesis Flood in 1961, but that in that time man has gone to the moon, invented cell phones, the World Wide Web and MRIs, and wiped out smallpox, Faith is unfazed. Very puzzling.
This analysis leads to no insights that I can see, and we're left only with the fact that Faith is as inexplicable to us are we apparently are to her. But I see no reason the discussion can't continue with Faith participating from the greater distance and comfort of her blog.