Right, but in that case why make reference to real things at all? The water appeared out of nowhere because God wanted it to, and then poofed away into nothing because God told it to. What's wrong with saying that? But if instead creationists want to produce a naturalistic explanation for their flood, then they are obliged to give us a bit more detail.
An "ex nihilo" water creation and "de-ex nihilo" disposal seems to be the only remotely rational answer to me.
And the Biblical narrative seems to indicate the flood didn't have much effect on anything other than land based animal life. What about the poor submerged plants? Apparently they were still in place and doing fine when the flood receded.
quote:Water on Earth is omnipresent and essential for life as we know it, and yet scientists remain a bit baffled about where all of this water came from: Was it present when the planet formed, or did the planet form dry and only later get its water from impacts with water-rich objects such as comets?
A new study in the journal Science suggests that the Earth likely got a lot of its precious water from the original materials that built the planet, instead of having water arrive later from afar.
The researchers who did this study went looking for signs of water in a rare kind of meteorite. Only about 2% of the meteorites found on Earth are so-called enstatite chondrite meteorites. Their chemical makeup suggests they're close to the kind of primordial stuff that glommed together and produced our planet 4.5 billion years ago.
quote:Despite these convincing results, she says, there's still plenty of watery mysteries to plumb. For example, researchers are still trying to determine exactly how much water is locked deep inside the Earth, but it's surely substantial — several oceans' worth.
"There is more water down beneath our feet," Peslier says, "than there is that you see at the surface."