This question became an off-topic sidetrack in another thread. I thought it might be worth some debate so posted here . . .
The debate is basically between mainstream geological understanding of the Earth's history and "Young Earth Creationism" In particular with how the evidence relates to the occurrence of a Global Flood in the recent past.
A couple of points from the YEC website www.icr.org are raised as examples in order to kick things off . . .
Under the heading . . . Much Evidence Exists for a Worldwide Flood . . . the webpage has this to say . . .
Widespread marine strata and fossils in the earth's highest mountains and upon elevated continental plateaus imply that the ocean once covered the continents.
A common form of "marine strata" is limestone , and it's age following formation can be readily and accurately determined. This is possible because limestone frequently contains fluctuations in density giving rise to cavitation . . . and what we call limestone caves. Within these caves are often found formations formed by the action of water seeping through it on account of it's porosity . . . what we know as "stalagtites" and "stalagmites". The age of these structures can be determined to within a narrow geological time frame through cross-section analysis, much in the way we determine the age of trees by counting the rings.
Cross section analysis of these formations have determined some from the Archaean (3500 million years ago) through to the Tertiary (65 m.y.o) periods. Tectonic plate movement over such a period generates the uplift which places them above sea level. Parts of the British Isles have been shown to have been submerged and then uplifted up to twelve times throughout their geological history.
The above quotation uses the word "imply". The implication being that because marine strata can be found at elevated levels the oceans must have been there at some time. This is a specious conclusion, somewhat naieve, and what 99.9% of the worlds serious Geologists regard as childish in it's overt simplicity. In other words . . . it's crap.
As a second example . . . under the heading . . . Transcontinental Sedimentation and the Flood . . . the webpage has this to say . . .
Geologist Andrew Snelling recently reported that the Coconino Sandstone, visible in the walls of the Grand Canyon, is part of a vast slab containing a colossal 10,000 cubic miles of cemented sand. 2 Where did all this sand come from? The first clue is that “cross beds within the Coconino Sandstone (and the Glorieta Sandstone of New Mexico and Texas) dip toward the south, indicating that the sand came from the north.” 3 The nearest northern source of similarly colored sand was likely from far away Utah, and must have been washed down by a widespread sheet of water.
In the Biblical description of the worldwide flood . . . a huge volume of rain fell in a short time. Rainfall indeed facilitates the transportation of alluvial material including sand. However a cataclysm such as is described in the Bible would cause the movement of much larger aggregates than pure sand . . . and would form an aggregational mixture of sediment with aggregates as large as several tonnes. Sand strata and sandstones are formed by the gradual eroding of alluviums by a relatively small and regular exposure to rainfall over time . . . hence the aggregate is small and consistent in size (sand). To put it simply . . . could all that sand travel down from Utah in a massive "wash" without picking up a few rocks on the way? A catclysmic event could not produce such consistency . . . logic alone should tell us that. This is indeed the case with the Coconino Sandstone. The sloping nature of the strata is simply the result of the aforementioned tectonic uplift.
Highly variagated aggregates would, in the case of the biblical flood be present in huge volumes . . . be widespread . . . and of identical age . . . but they are not.
In conclusion . . . the "Geologists" who support the notion of a world-wide flood seek their evidence with this preconcieved premise or bias. The remainig 99.9% of scientist involved in this field, examine the evidence without such a premise. Indeed such a premise is occlusive to true geological science.
"Scientists" who indulge themselves in this way are not taken seriously by the wider scientific community regardless of their religion or premise (bias).
