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.
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.
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.
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.