Alright, I'll play -
First note that Morris is not really a geologist - but a civil engineer. His speculations are not based on evidence, simulations, models, etc.
If such a flood took place, it would have laid down multiple layers of mud full of the remains of plants and animals which died in the Flood. These
layers would be widespread (since the Flood was global) and give evidence of having been laid down rapidly.
Well, the funny thing with this statement is that Morris doesn't go on to describe where all this 'widespread evidence' actually is. He just states that it 'should be there', and leaves it at that. Uh.. ok! It should be there, so no-doubt it is.
In the complex of events and conditions that made up the Flood, certainly there were pockets of fresh and/or clean water at any one time. Remember, it was raining in torrents, and we can expect that the rain was fairly fresh water. Many studies have shown that waters of various temperatures, chemistries, and sediment loads do not tend to mix; they tend to remain segregated into zones. It would be unlikely for any one area to retain such zones for very long during the tumult of the Flood, but on a worldwide scale, some such segregated zones would have existed at any given time.
Morris throws out another assumption, but fine - it's not unreasonable to make some assumptions. It is unlikely that the global ocean was 100% homogenous within the initial timeframe, but as he acknoledges that with torrential rains and storms - things would get stirred up. And then the waters didn't just 'go away' after it stopped raining - they lingered on for over a year.
Such an explaination might account for the survival of a few robust and lucky species - but there are hundreds of extremely delicate and very old ecosystems in the oceans. It's quite an assumption indeed to believe these too could survive intact.
Furthermore, we don't know the tolerance levels of pre-Flood fish for sediment, salt, and temperature. Modern fish have a great variety of responses to different environments. Perhaps before the Flood, fish were even more adaptable.
Yeah, I can do that too.
"Modern fish have a great variety of responses to different environments. Perhaps before the Flood, fish could shoot lasers out of their eyes."
"Modern fish have a great variety of responses to different environments. Perhaps before the Flood, fish could [make sh*t up without a shred of supporting evidence]"
"If we don't know, anything goes."
There is also the possibility that great amounts of vegetation were dislodged from the pre-Flood continents and remained intertwined during the Flood as floating mats. Many creationists feel that the decay and abrasion of these mats are responsible for our major coal seams, but underneath these mats, the turbulence of the surface would have been lessened. Perhaps many fish found shelter and nutrition under them, as insects may have, on the mats themselves.
How creationists 'feel' doesn't change the laws of physics. Many creationists 'feel' that a man can live inside the stomach of a fish for 3 days. Evidently, creationists believe that "stomach acid" is a suitable replacement for "oxygen".
But hey, if creationists feel that the 'decay and abrasion of these mats' could have lessened the aquatic armegeddon going on in the ocean, it must be so. Creationists feelings are well established as being on-par with the pursuit of knowledge through documented study and experimentation.
There was also a supreme being controlling events that had a plan for the survival of the diversity of life as we know it.
But one would think that an intelligent being could achieve some semblance of efficiency.
When the biblical authors didn't know a better way - God didn't know a better way. If an intelligent god wanted to wipe out 99.9% of humanity (as he often does), he could have moved those he wanted to save away from civilization, and let the spanish flu loose a little early.
Likewise, if an army in biblical times needed some extra daylight - one would think an intelligent god could do so efficently. Not only are the biblical authors ignorant that the sun doesn't actually move - the earth rotates ("Sun, stand still!"), but they likely didn't understand the magnitudes of energy that would be involved to 'stop the sun'. The mass of the earth is around 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons. From calculations I found online, it would require ~6.98 x 10^33 watts of power to stop the rotation of the earth (God would have to make sure everything not bolted down didn't fly east at about 1000 mph at the equator, of course). And then, just a few hours later, he'd need to spend another ~ 6.98 x 10^33 watts of power to start it back up again.
One would think god could have just sprung for some gasoline generators and halogen lights - even with our pithy human technology and losses due to energy conversion, we could very likely light the required area in the sub-megawatt scale.
The biblical god can't even communicate in an efficient manner. Anyone who walked into a business conference room and tried to direct his team through 'visions' and 'interpreting dreams' and 'stories' would be shown the door. The biblical god, however, with what would be described as the most important message for man does just that - myths, beasts, bowls, trupets, statues... just look at today's religions, and see just how well "god" got his message across. Look at how hard JW's struggle to find explainations for a single scripture and stick with that explaination.
In a search for answers of the origin of life by an unguided natural process, science often contradicts itself and nullifies its own theories.
Again, Morris makes a blanket statement without backing it up with anything.
If science contradicts itself, scientists work to come to a better understanding. If science nullifies a theory - it replaces it with a superior theory that better fits the evidence. In no way does that detract from the usefulness of science, and in fact in so doing science gives us more.