It is up to those who arrogantly claim there was no biblical flood/catastrophe to show the math.
What you're asking for is impossible. How are we supposed to show our math refuting a claim when the person making a claim makes it so vague as to allow anything at all?
In essence, what you're setting us up for is a snipe hunt because every time we make a counterclaim, you'll throw something new in there that we'll then have to redo all the work. The only way this conversation has any chance at reaching a conclusion is if you, or someone else, provides their specific model. We can then discuss the possibilities and probabilities.
Until then, you're saying, "Prove what I'm thinking is wrong." When we ask you, quite reasonably, "What are you thinking?" You reply, "That's not for me to say. You're the one arrogantly claiming it's wrong."
Don't you see how we would be embarking on a fool's errand to even attempt to follow your directions?
Why don't I have the right to make a positive claim of possibility when you guys make the negative claim of impossiblity?
That's how debate works. Person A makes a claim, they then have to support that claim. If person B says the claim is wrong, it is up to person A, who is making the positive claim, to provide a reason to believe them. If they don't, then person B has nothing to refute, and wins by default.
But even ignoring that. You need to read the OP. The purpose of this thread is for those who believe the flood happened to provide their models and see if they stand up to scrutiny. If you aren't willing to provide a model that can be tested, then you don't belong in this thread.
I understand you're new to this forum. We try to keep threads focused on the OP. If you're not willing to abide by that and the other forum guidelines, you'll soon either find yourself ignored or banned.
This thread is for flood believers to offer evidence or a model. Those of us who don't believe the flood happened are then tasked with trying to show how that model doesn't work. We can't refute a claim that has nothing in it.
So you are moving water from the crust to the surface. How does that raise sea level? What takes the place of the water? And why would the water go back?
ICANT's model is preposterous, but it is not, I think, what you seem to be understanding.
I believe he is saying that the water that was on Earth (plus some brought by comets) was buried by the rock from comets and asteroids. As this dirt built up, the pressure from the added dirt forced the water towards the surface.
When it reached the surface, it flooded the planet. Then, where the water had been (under the surface) collapsed, creating depressions that the water flowed into making the oceans we have now.
This model doesn't work, but it doesn't argue that water was in a cavern underground, spontaneously left the caverns to flood the planet, then returned to the caverns.
Do you read this as a world without oceans? Simple dewatering of buried sediments does not raise sea level.
I think, and this is only by trying to peice together things he's said on other threads and such, that at first the earth was all water. Then land was created in one area, either by god, or maybe through ICANT's bombardment model.
Then, bombardment continued, creating mroe land and burying more and more water, until, I assume, there was no surface water left, it was all buried, sort of like the water table. (You dig down, you get water.) As this dirt and rock built up, the pressure, somehow, forced the water back to the surface, but the dirt didn't immediately compact or "fill in the gaps" which doesn't seem to make sense from a pressure point of view.
Then, after the flood had covered the land, the dirt finally compacted in areas, filling in the space that had been occupied by water, creating the seas and rivers and lakes and such, where the water pooled, allowing other areas to remain dirt.
Of course, I don't understand why the dirt didn't compact everywhere, leading to a continuously flooded earth...unless bombardment continued, building up yet another layer of dirt...but somehow allowing people to survive.