I'll leave the Peleg part to others.
But I'm gonna take a stab at this.
My original comments on this is that if this is what happened and it happened after the flood how would you find a flood layer that would be readable if mountains were formed and the different oceans formed.
What would you expect to find?
We would expect to find a flood layer.
If there were no mountains before Babel (after the global flood) and there were mountains after Babel (after the global flood) we would expect to see evidence of a global flood in all of the mountains. Ignoring for the moment that there is no historical evidence for mountains forming spontaneously about 3,000 years ago, we know that there is no historical evidence for rapid erosion (or dramatic uplift) of mountains since the supposed time of Babel. We also can deduce, according to your chart, that Babel happened about a century or so after the flood. More than enough time (ABE: for the sake of argument) for all the sedimentary layers supposedly laid down by the flood to harden enough to create enough resistance to form the mountains (and not be all slippery like so that people weren't walking in hundreds of feet of mud for a century or so and so that when the mountains
did form they weren't just giant peaks of mush).**
Now, knowing this, logically we can deduce that mountains of similar height will have an identifiable "flood layer" in approximately the same spot. All of the flora and fauna which supposedly went extinct during the flood should be contained in identifiable layers with no major regional differences (since it was all one landmass during the flood and they all got tossed around with the same force that carved the Grand Canyon then why would certain types of animals be confined to certain continents...or for that matter certain predicted stages of evolution) in just about the same spot as all of the other mountains of just about the same height.
Of course, no one has been able to say what exactly this flood layer should look like (except to co-opt the actual geological record and make up some post-hoc reasonings as to why the fossils appear in the layers that they do - MAMMOTHS ARE LIGHTER THAN ARCHAEOPTERYX AND SANK SLOWER!!!), but once you all decide what it should look like then you can start looking at the 3,000 year old mountains and see if you find that layer. We'll be waiting.
Should be fun. Ya know, repeating scientific history. A bunch of creationist scientists looking hither and thither for evidence of a flood and finding no such thing and concluding that the Earth must be much older than they thought based on the evidence.
**Besides the geology, you would have to explain how mountains were formed so rapidly without creating so much heat that nothing would survive (even on a wooden boat...maybe one of simple's divine spaceships?). That (and hundreds of other reasons) is why people ask for a model that explains
all of the evidence. Not just bits and pieces to your liking.
Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.
"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -
The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
™ Version 4.2
