Bryan Costello

Flood Physics
In science creationist models are often ignored although the models often point out flaws in
evolutionist models that go unanswered. The article, The Physics Behind the Genesis Flood presents
yet another flaw with the evolutionist theory involving plate tectonics and also introduces new evidence
for the creationist flood theory. This paper will be addressing the information presented in the article,
evaluating the validity of the evidence presented, the consistency of the author, and analyzing the
authors evidence compared to the conclusion. In particular this article is mainly comparing the plate
tectonics theory to the newly created model that shows evidence of the biblical flood, which fits in with
the geological record quite nicely.
Through out the paper the author consistent with providing evidence to support the claims made
about the biblical flood occurring. After each of the points made to either show flaw with plate
tectonics or to support the flood theory the author goes to include the thesis about how the flood model
is more reliable. For example, this statement was provided after explaining different mantle runway
calculations, Such upwellings from the bottom boundary have dramatic implications for transient
changes in sea level during the Flood since they produce a temporary rise in the height of the ocean
bottom by several kilometers. This goes on to show how the author does indeed take time to go back
and restate the thesis presented in the introduction. Along with showing consistent evidence for the
authors find he also does a great job of explaining how each of the concepts that he mentions takes
place or how they calculate these formulas. Along with basically the whole article a perfect example of
the authors explanations is the introduction. Not only does the author explain and describe the methods
used but, the author doesn't assume that the reader knows all there is to know on the top, which is why
the explanations help. The author includes graphs and charts that go along with the calculations and
arguments made to provide a better understanding for the reader and of course to support the biblical
flood evidence. I also, believe that the authors evidence is quite convincing in the way the information

is presented and the reasons the author gives for this recently made model. For instance, the author had
this to say for the reason why the method couldn't have been done earlier, This new formulation of the
multigrid solver represents a breakthrough in treating large local variations in rock strength and allows
the mantle runaway process to be modeled to completion for the very rst time. Results I have reported
in previous ICC papers only tracked the runaway to its earliest stages. Beyond that point available
numerical methods failed....computer methods were not available that could handle fully developed
runaway conditions. These reasons provided seem logical and believable and make readers question if
this could be true or not. The author does not completely discredit the plate tectonics theory but,
instead points out where they may have gone wrong and how using the authors new method these
points can be corrected. The author does include the problems faced in his explanations of catastrophic
plate tectonics which makes the information more credible, seeing that the author recognizes problems
with their conclusions. While the author does mention some problems he ran into the author goes on to
say reasons how these problems could be corrected or miscalculations left out or even different factors
that could have gone unaccounted for. For example, the author introduces a problem and suggests a
different solution, On the order of 1,0001,500 m of water would then be needed to cool the present
ocean lithosphere to its current state. Although this is a lot of seawater, it is not entirely beyond the
realm of comprehension. Although, the majority of the article was well written and provided evidence
and used logical statements, the conclusion was accurate but, not explain as best as it could have been.
The conclusion does indeed agree with all of the previous information stated and stays true to the
thesis. However, the problem with the conclusion is that the author went on to mention how God is
credited for this information which could have made the information discreditable in some readers
eyes, especially if they do not believe in a God. Other than that the conclusion was very well presented
and left a lasting impression which is the whole reason for writing these articles besides strictly the
purpose of writing down the factually evidence.

Overall, the article was written very well, the author did a great job providing good evidence
and writing out his logical thinking. The author was also consistent with his information and including
his original thesis throughout the article. The conclusion summed up the whole article and was true to
the thesis as well.