Seeing as how it’s had an influence on evolution, and that I imagine it probably wouldn’t be right to have the world created and then the landmass moving about pretty considerably; I assume they either don’t believe it exists or have a very interesting excuse?
I’ve seen some people claim that all the continents were together at the time of the flood, allowing the animals from the ark to get to their final locations. The continents supposedly then drifted apart, in an analog to the hyper-evolution some floodites propose to explain the diversity of life beyond what could fit on the ark.
Since continental drift can now be measured, I have a hard time understanding how it could be denied. But I am often surprised.
There is no single position;
-Some of them flatly deny that anything is moving or changing (despite the evidence, which they flatly refuse to look at); these have the problem of where the floodwaters went (there isn’t enough to cover everything as it exists at the moment, so they say it went away by a miracle, or they just ignore the problem.
-Some of them believe that the landmasses were very much flatter before and during the flood, allowing the water that is on Earth now to have covered everything; these have the problem of how the landmasses got to be so lumpy afterwards, so they invoke hyper-tectonics or a miracle, or they just ignore the problem.
Pshaw…that’s all smoke and mirrors, run by NASA out of a TV studio in Burbank under the direction of Howard Hughes via Nancy Reagan’s astrologer/medium.
As if the continents could drift. :rolleyes: Rocks sink in water, man. Explain that one, smarty-scientisto guy!