Well if the actual global flood took place over some 100 or so millions of years ago. Then what does it do to those other younger (YEC) interpretations? These arguments are over interpretations of the evidences. OEC think that the Noah's flood was a universal but local flood of some kind.
It isn’t merely interpretations of evidence.
The motion of the plate tectonics and the continental drift are real, and they are all still moving at different rates.
At some point before the Triassic period, the supercontinent Pangaea all the tectonics were joined together, then around 200 million years ago, Pangaea split into 2: Laurasia and Gondwana.
Laurasia included the Eurasia and North America plates, while the Gondwana would include everything else that we now identified as South America, Africa, Australia, Antarctica, and the subcontinents of Indian and Arabia.
In Early Jurassic, Gondwana split into East Gondwana (Australia, Antarctica, India and Madagascar) and West Gondwana (South America and Africa) around 180-170 million years ago. But before such split happened, it would explain why marsupials only exist in today’s Australia and South America, when the two Gondwana were joined.
Then around 132 million years ago (Early Cretaceous), West Gondwana split what we now know now as South America and Africa, which separated about 100 million years ago; this later separation caused the Atlantic Ocean become increasingly wider.
And around 120 million years ago India and Madagascar split from Australia and Antarctica.
India and Madagascar were separated at some point with the later moving westward towards Africa and the former (Indian subcontinent) were moving northward to later China’s Tibetan Plateau.
So before Indian tectonic joined with Eurasian tectonic, there was ocean flood that separated the two. By the Late Cretaceous (70 to 55 million years ago), these two tectonics were already causing pressures on the ocean flood to lift and fold, as the Indian tectonic continued to move northward 15 cm per year. More of the sea that separated the two tectonics began to shrink, the more sedimentary rocks began to rise above sea level, at 38 million years ago, then contacted with southwest China, around 10 million years ago.
The Indian tectonic continued to push northward, thereby forming the Himalayas. The Himalayas is quite young, when you compared it against the Andes Mountains of South America. Even in this last 2 centuries, the Indian tectonic is still pushing northward into the Tibetan Plateau about 67 mm per year, causing Everest rising about 5 mm per year. Everest was only 24-25 metres shorter 5000 years ago when comparing today’s elevation.
And speaking of the Andes, the geological evidence of higher altitude of these mountains have have glaciers, but no rain have been detected for over a million years in the higher region.
Humans weren’t around when the Himalayas was underwater.
And as I said to you in my last reply, fossilisation don’t occur on bones less than 10,000 years old, and according to the calculations between the fall of Jerusalem (587 BCE) to the Flood, based on the Masoretic Text (in which most modern translations of the Old Testament), about 1840 years separated these two events, which would mean the Flood would be estimated to about 2430 BCE, hence roughly 4500 years ago.
There would be no fossilisation occurring less 4500 years ago, and to date, no fossils were ever found that are less than 10,000 years old. Hence, the fossils of marine animals would have to predated before humans, and since the Himalayas was ocean flood prior to 10 million years ago, then these fossils must be much older.
I know that creationists don’t rely on logic and evidence, but there were never a global flood around 2430 BCE, and no global flood, period.