Because the history is not repeatable, to an extent it is speculation, but from what the bible says, there was more water in the atmosphere then than now, as well as super-hot water coming from beneath the earth, and it is easy to show water exists beneath the earth.
It's important to take a look of a map of the globe without any water on it. The mid-oceanic ridge is much more explainable given a massive catastrophism, IMO, in that this explains the continents splitting. You can trace the continents being split by the ridge.
I find it hilarious how creationists make use of and then subsequently distort scientific findings for their own ends. For example, "continental drift" was for many years very much a fringe idea that had no serious support by anyone, until the discovery of plate tectonics provided the necessary mechanisms. All of a sudden, YECreationists en masse seized on this and proclaimed it physical confirmation of the old Peleg story ("See? Science supports our side!") and subsequently invented nonsense like runaway subduction solely for the purpose of squeezing it all within their cramped time-frame.
Well, scientific knowledge in geology has continued to advance a great deal since then. Are you aware, Mike, that there is evidence of the existence of several previous supercontinents before Pangaea (c 200 mya)? How do creationists deal with these prior supercontinent cycles, such as Pannotia (550 mya), Rodinia (750 mya), and Columbia (1500 mya), other than complete silence?
I have not dug too deeply into this topic personally, but I do not think that it is a big problem, it is certainly credulous compared to a rock sprouting feelers, for example, whereby such a proposal is completely invented, 100% speculation, without any facts to look at.
"Rock sprouting feelers"??? I really had to scrape the bottom of the Google barrel for this one. Guess what, yours (Message 28 from way back to 2008!) is the only reference on teh entire internets, referring to your personal incredulity per abiogenesis.
Believing in a flood is not as big a deal as evolutionists want to make out. We also believe that life produces life. Abiogenesis, I would say, take much more faith to believe in, than a large flood, which is not just possible but easily probable.
Belief is irrelevant. Even if it were, isn't it immensely ironic how fundies continually belittle the very concept of faith (a key component of their own belief structure)?