"plausible" is a reality that would mean that ALL connate, frozen, and hydration water would need to be made available to "Hide " an entire planet.
I am unaware of where in the stratigraphgic record we have worldwide evidence of a "Worldwide FDlood". Even in some classical localities like the Grand Canyon (which is a favorite of Creationsts and "flood geologists" ) "Flood geologists" expound on a hypothesis based upon a series of connected
marine , deltaic and riverine sedimentary layers (over top of the SHield rocks of the Vishnu SChists). Yet always, in the middlings and here and there are clear evidences of Varved deposits and dune deposits.
The rest of the planet needs to show, somehwere, an unbroken marine sequence that evidences a worldwide transgression, and we havent seen it anywhere.
Id be happy to discuss that stratigraphy because Im an old geologist whose been in the racket for about 37 years now (Before which I was a geochemist studying and mining rare earth elements).
Youre right, I didnt read your book, I did the easy thing of looking at chapter headings, and your conclusions. Earth history with the Bible as a preceptory set of "assumptions" gives me some adjida. you would have to totally ignore several aspects of earth science and geophysics and prinicpally stratigraphy to even say that there is evidence for a worldwide flood.
NOT accepting Ryan and Pittmans work becaame reasonable only lately as more advanced Mass Spec technologies like SHRIMP had developed (These were not available in the time that the two were doing their researches.
It was comforting to initially accept their work as reasonable because it provided some closure as to the origins of a worldwide flood mythopoeic base of scriptures. Ryan and Pittmnan werennt interested in coming up with a flood myth substitute, they were engaged in real geophysics . The fact that they came up with the story they did was captured by newspapers and popular presses.
I was teaching geology at the time and we studied their work ion an econ geologic basis. Several of my really inquisitive students actually wrote to R and P to question theior bases of fact finding and my students were lewft un satisfied. I was quite prouyd of them since they went waay beyond my simple means to analyze the data.
SO, if I understand, you still believe in a worldwide FLood, you accept geologic data and evidence of evolution and possibly several other things. Im curious where you go from there to still assert that a worldwide flood was a reality.
Please accept my tone as great curiosity and Im not tryinmg to be m,ean spirited, although you must realize that, whenever we write something we have a "model of communication" in our minds but we are often unaware that what we say may be percieved as curt and rude on the receiving end.
Lets have some fun eh?
PS-Are you saying that the book by WHitcomb and Morris is close to being an accurate scientific account?