Book
Response 1 of 13
Genesis 6–9 gives a cumulative case for a global Flood. Ross affirms all-human judgment; this YEC response explains why the narrative's water, animals and preservation favor a wider geographical scope.
Response 2 of 13
Genesis 5 and 11 give ages as well as relationships. This YEC response answers Ross’s family-line reading: omitted names alone do not add years, and damaged P75 cannot securely settle Cainan’s presence.
Response 3 of 13
Ross’s ancient Flood date depends on identifying biblical events with proposed natural history. This YEC response separates the text’s chronology from those identifications.
Response 4 of 13
Ross reads the sea-boundary passages as enduring creation limits. This YEC response weighs their creation context alongside Genesis’s Flood judgment and covenant.
Response 5 of 13
Ross links mîn to narrow animal categories and nephesh to human-associated creatures. Genesis names broader animal classes; neither reading alone supplies a modern species inventory.
Response 6 of 13
The Flood calendar supplies real constraints, but does not identify an ice-age melt or Hormuz barrier. Both regional and global models need to explain the text and their physical assumptions.
Response 7 of 13
Genesis’s global scope and a model assigning rock layers to the Flood are separate claims. Ross’s archive arguments deserve actual dataset checks; the Palmer’s oak study is not a long counted-ring chronology.
Response 8 of 13
Jeremiah’s covenant assurance and Romans’s hope for creation do not specify laboratory constants. This YEC response distinguishes their theological meaning from tests of particular physical models.
Response 9 of 13
Heat and radiation are serious objections to proposed accelerated Flood mechanisms. Genesis’s global scope does not supply a physical solution, and Scripture does not require those particular mechanisms.
Response 10 of 13
This YEC reading connects plant-food provision, the curse and future liberation. It answers Ross's contextual arguments while distinguishing what Genesis and Romans 8 state from a wider Fall-and-restoration interpretation.
Response 11 of 13
Ross and the YEC reading both affirm eight human survivors. The disagreement concerns chronology and genetic inference: a lineage's common ancestor, retained variation and a complete founding-population model answer different questions.
Response 12 of 13
Ross’s biological-production argument needs an inventory and explicit accumulation model. The FAO annual-energy estimate is not a universal maximum, and the table cells were unavailable in the text extraction.
Response 13 of 13
Genesis records a division in Peleg’s days without naming a drowned land bridge. Ross’s date depends on that identification and a conditional lifespan calculation; the chapter’s human geography favors another reading here.