At a glance
Genesis supplies a calendar and describes judgment and preservation. It does not name an ice-age melt, a stalled weather front or a barrier in the Hormuz Strait. Ross proposes these as possible physical contributors to a very extensive regional Flood. This site favors a global reading while requiring both models to account for the actual narrative.
The proposal is larger than a small Mesopotamian flood
Ross discusses ice-sheet melting, prolonged rain and underground water, with a possible breached barrier near the Hormuz Strait. He offers varying possible extents based on sea level, climate and human settlement. His intended event destroys every human outside the ark and the relevant human-associated animals; it is not an ordinary river overflow that leaves other human communities untouched. [1]
Chapter 11 also argues that the slow recession requires continuing inflow from melting snow and ice. Chapter 13 suggests that later environmental changes would have erased recognizable deposits. These are parts of Ross’s reconstruction, rather than observations identifying a particular surviving deposit as Noah’s Flood. [2] [3]
Read the entire calendar
Genesis 7:11–8:19 distinguishes the start of the Flood, rain, prevailing waters, the ark’s rest, visible mountain tops, the bird missions, drying and departure. In 8:13 Noah observes the ground’s surface drying; in 8:14 the earth is dry, and in 8:15–19 God directs departure. Treating those last stages as the same instant misstates the narrative.
The calendar constrains a mechanism but does not select one. A regional model must explain water depth, continuing inflow, storage and drainage over that sequence. A global model must explain the same sequence alongside its proposed redistribution of water and land. An estimate based on present drainage cannot decide the question without specifying the assumed geography and conditions.
The principal biblical disagreement
The scope response gives this site’s reasons for reading Genesis’s waters, mountains, animals and covenant globally. Ross understands the mountain language from the ark’s perspective and ties the event’s reach to the inhabited human world. That requires an account of where people lived, not merely an identification of a plausible flooded basin.
Genesis 11:1–9 describes humanity’s resistance to scattering after the Flood. It does not draw a map of every pre-Flood settlement. Genesis 8:20–9:17 gives a worldwide human and animal covenant in this site’s reading; it does not specify the physical water source.
Ross answers the objection that a regional Flood makes the ark pointless through its warning and preservation purposes. [4] Rejecting that answer without examining it would be unfair. The more substantial disagreement remains the narrative’s scope.
What has not been demonstrated here
The cited geological and hydrological studies underlying every proposed contributor have not been independently reconstructed here. Claims that all deposits must have disappeared, or that the proposed inflows meet the full Flood calendar, are therefore not established here. Equally, a list of unresolved regional-model questions is not a demonstration that a YEC global model meets them. Both proposals need stated parameters and predictions.
References below identify sections of the 2025 RTB Press first edition; they do not supply printed page numbers.