If it was a global flood (flat earthers hate that term) then there would be no continents to break up the tidal waters thus creating changes in tides 200 feet.
Citation needed for those 200-foot tides. Believe it or not, coastlines can concentrate tides. The largest recorded tides are about 50 feet in amplitude. Let's see the calculations that predict tides four times that amplitude on an ocean-covered earth.
This is assuming that there's no continents to run into.
Yes. Isn't that what you meant by "If it was a global flood then there would be no continents to break up the tidal waters"?
https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Catastrophic-Plate-Tectonics-A-Global-Flood-Model.pdf
That document speculates on p.6 that "it is possible that some amount of tidal resonance may have been achieved (Clark & Voss, 1985, 1990, 1992)". Those references are all for "creation science" conference papers. Do any of them provide calculations about how large the postulated tides would be?
At any rate, this paper is a superb example of the handwaving and sketchy logic necessary for interpretations that must satisfy a pre-decided outcome as explained here:
However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.
http://creationwiki.org/Flood_geology
[Some flood geologists] argue that in a global flood scenario, the tides would be unhindered by continents, creating enormous waves circling the globe.
That statement is unreferenced and "enormous" is vague, so I'd still like to see the calculations showing how the size of the asserted 200-foot tides was reached.
Further, in the same paragraph it says:
Some flood geologists have argued that during a global flood, liquefaction would have occurred on a massive scale.
But two paragraphs later in the same section it says:
In contrast, recent plume experiments by creationist geologists at Creation Evidence Museum at Glen Rose, Texas, have shown that moving water always creates sedimentary layering and liquefaction always destroys layering. Given the vast amount of sedimentary layers around the world, liquefaction is argued to have played a very minor part in the geologic record.
So, which is it? Massive scale or minor part?
Also with storms (which according to the global flood model would've been HUGE) they could scatter it better across the world.
These fossils aren't scattered widely across the world. They're in limited areas that jigsaw-puzzle fit nicely when matching the shapes of Africa and South America.
What I meant "across the world" was across certain regions.
"Across the world" doesn't mean across the world, it means something else?
Plus how do you know there aren't fossils under the ocean floor? What if the fossils found in South America are connected to South Africa?
There are fossils under the ocean floor. To my knowledge there are no fossils of land animals under deep ocean sediments between Africa and South America. If you can find evidence that there are, please provide it.
Not only that we have a modern example with plane wreckage. Pieces of metal washing up on beaches thousands of miles from the crash site.
Specifics? Debris attributed to ML 370 has been found in Australia and in the vicinity of Madagascar. That's pretty wide spread
Proving my point. And the distance between South America and South Africa is roughly the same.
For context, the 'example' you refer to is:
... with storms (which according to the global flood model would've been HUGE) they could scatter it better across the world.
No one doubts that currents can transport floating objects over long distances. Australia and Madagascar are in quite different directions from the area where ML 370 is presumed to have gone down; which supports the generally-understood meaning of "scatter". If by "scatter" you mean from a limited area on one side of the Atlantic to a limited area on the other side with coastlines that just happen to match jigsaw-puzzle fashion, then that's different.
Take a map of Pangea and you'll see that they shrank Africa by 40%.
Which map, and what projection did they use? It's well-established that parts of continents that are now dry were at times submerged, so I'm not sure of your point.
You can do two things:
1. Get a modern map and a Pangea map from the same source at the same scale and see the difference.
2. Scale down modern Africa down to the Africa in Pangea and see the difference.
Can you show some actual maps, please?
I don't know how to do pictures and I couldn't find a link explaining it.
1) You'll need an account at an image-hosting service. I use
photobucket.com (PB). PB is free and easy to use, but there are many others.
2) Upload your image to your hosting service. The website should explain how; it's often a choice of drag and drop or an open-file dialog, or both. PB provides both.
3) Once it's uploaded, copy the URL for the image. In PB, select the image and copy the location form the "Direct" box. I have a pop-up and ad blocker, and plug-in inhibitors that seem to get confused by these convenience address boxes, but clicking a couple of times on PB's "Direct" box copies the URL; there are other ways to get the URL, as well, if that doesn't work.
4) Paste the URL into your post between image tags (use the "Insert Image" button on the left above the emojis above the post-composition box to insert image tags in the text at the cursor location or around selected text).
Until there's something to look at, there's nothing to discuss.
...
Can you link to the skeletonal difference between a salamander and a lizard?
Sure... no problem.
Salamander:
http://animaldiversity.org/collections/contributors/Grzimek_herps/structure_function/salamander_skeleton/medium.jpg
Lizard (Skink):
http://www.savalli.us/BIO370/Anatomy/AnatomyImages/SkinkSkeletonLabel.jpg
Similar; they're both vertebrates with long tails, but they're distinctly different
Thanks. While one may not class them in the same family if all we found were fossils, one could say that the salamander evolved into the lizard.
One could say pretty much anything.
One would have a hard time defending conclusions like "this kinda sorta looks like this; it has four legs and a massive tail compared to body size, so one must have descended from the other" in a real Paleontological publication.
But that's what they're doing. They're already claiming that amphibians evolved into reptiles.
Do paleontologists provide details why they make this interpretation, or do they just say "it is so"? If the latter, please provide a reference in a genuine peer-reviewed scientific publication that specializes in vertebrate paleontology, preferably published within the last half century or so, that makes such a claim. Since you'd be asserting that current paleontologists are saying this in publications that can be cited in other scientific publications, references that purport to say, secondhand or later, what paleontologists say are not sufficient; most (all?) creationist literature falls into this category.
For a thorough explanation for any notion about the Grand Canyon and "flood geology", I highly recommend you obtain and read that book [ISBN: 9780825444210]. If you can successfully refute the answers there, it will strengthen your argument; if you understand the author's argument, you've learned something. Either outcome, it would be worth reading. And, no... I get no financial benefit from any purchase of that book;our donation to defer publication expenses was nothing more than a donation to what we thought was a useful publication.
Thanks. Although it doesn't help neither of us at the moment since I don't have the book and it wouldn't be fair to ask you to give it to me since at the moment I'm strap for cash. Besides, I don't trust people online to give personal info like my mailing address. You have those shifty beady eyes my mom always warned me about. And you have a scar on your face. 
I understand. References that aren't available online can be a problem in discussions like this.
If you're interested, perhaps your local library will obtain a copy - it's unlikely they already have one - or can get one on inter-library loan. Both of these will take time, however. I'm not about to mail our copy to "some guy on the Internet" for the same reasons you give.
Also,
Some fish were buried alive and fossilized so quickly in the geologic record that they were “caught in the act” of eating their last meal (figure 12). Then there is the classic example of a female marine reptile, an ichthyosaur, about 6 feet (2 m) long, found fossilized at the moment of giving birth to her baby (figure 13)! One minute this huge creature was giving birth, then seconds later, without time to escape, mother and baby were buried and “snap frozen” in a catastrophic “avalanche” of lime mud.
That's a rather fanciful way to view these fossils, but in keeping with the idea that interpretations must literally agree with Genesis. The "fish eating a fish" in figure 12 obviously bit more than he could swallow and most likely suffocated when he couldn't expel the smaller fish from his mouth, sank to the lake bed, and became buried in sediment before completely decaying.
What buried them
Sediments.
so fast?
How fast is necessary?
Fast enough to prevent decay and to seal off oxygen.
Sometimes the water itself contains little or no oxygen.
...
What usually happens is the body decays or gets eaten by scavengers.
Agreed. That's what usually happens, and why bone and shell fossils are much more common than soft tissue. "Usually" is not the same as "always", though, and occasionally fossils of more-easily decayed parts are found.
...
Even the bottom of the ocean has oxygen and scavengers.
Most places, yes, but not everywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_waters#Causes_and_effects,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_waters#Anoxic_basinsWhale bones to my recollection only last ten years.
Without further citation, that's anecdotal.
...
To my understanding the layers don't bend with the uplift. If that's the case then it didn't lift up.
Your understanding is wrong. If you're going to argue about geology, you would be wise to understand at least the basics of geology.
What I'm misunderstanding?
Pretty much all of geology.
The East Kaibab Monocline, for example, is a large well-studied flexure in the region of the eastern part of the Grand Canyon.
http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/56/2/107I've been busy and still haven't had a chance to review the rest. I'll try to get to it.