What evidence is there that a flood is responsible for all geological phenomena?

Question

I have been pondering why creationists will so often try to criticize evolution without having any understanding of what evolution actually says. They make assumptions that are completely untrue, and then ridicule my viewpoint based on their false assumptions. As I thought about it, I realized that perhaps too many evolutionists simply call them wrong without explaining their side.

Then I wondered, am I doing the same thing? Am I ignorant of how creationists view the world? In an attempt to not do the same, I ask for help. I have seen, more than once, creationists make the claim that a single flood is a better explanation of all geologic observations than current geology. Those of you that think this way... please help me understand this view. Simply choose any geologic phenomena, and anyone who gives any evidence or halfway logical explanation for how it can be explained by one flood will get best answer. I do this in an honest attempt to learn, and my judgements will be fair.

Evolutionists: Please do not respond with evidence for current geological theories. TRUST ME... I am already familiar with them. I already agree that current geological science provides an outstanding explanatory framework for a huge variety of observations. I am trying to be open minded and learn about a viewpoint that I don't understand. If you have insights into this viewpoint, then fine. But don't try to razzle-dazzle me with your knowledge and ridicule me for posting this question, because I will be unimpressed.

I want to hear from creationists who believe that a single flood caused most or all geologic phenomena and can give me a rationale for why you believe this. I will not make the assumption that all of you believe it, because I am all too tired of assumptions, but those of you that do, help me out! Tell me about your idea... take any observation you like, mountains, anticlines, cross bedding, and explain how this flood better explains them than current geology.

fmhguitars:
Thanks for the reply! I don't think I would say that you really answered what I was asking... I wanted someone to pick out a geologic phenomena and use this flood to EXPLAIN it, since that's the claim that been made to me. However, if what you say is true, you do provide some interesting cultural and anthropological evidence that the flood really happened. I will consider the possibility that it did.

vorenhutz:
You make a good point, and perhaps I should warn people here against trying to use the bible as evidence. It is very important for everyone to understand the following: Even under the assumption that bible was truly written by GOD HIMSELF, the bible STILL does not count as evidence. Yes, it is a document that contains an account of creation, and therefore makes creation an idea worthy of investigation. But the mention of the story in a book, no matter who the author is, is NOT EVIDENCE because it is not something observable in nature that directly supports the idea. Trying to use the bible as evidence for creation would be no more valid than trying to use a quote from the world's leading evolutionary biologist as evidence for creation. The quote from the biologist would make my position more CREDIBLE perhaps, but it is not EVIDENCE. The biologist still has to use observations and reason to back up his statement, and so to must any creationist who answers this question.

Typos above: I meant to say, "evolutionary biologist as evidence for EVOLUTION". Sorry about that, but the website doesn't let you directly edit your own question. Also, at the end it should be "so TOO must any creationist who answers this question."

I regret having to end this question after only five people have answered, but its expiration has almost come and I will be leaving the country in less than 24 hours. There were responses from 4 people who agree with me, and only 1 creationist. fmhguitar- I still feel that you did not really answer my question, since I was asking for an explanation of a geological phenomenon involving this flood. You mention the Grand Canyon in your response, and mention some cultural evidence that the flood happened, but you didn't explain how the flood formed the Grand Canyon. Still, you are the only person who mentioned any specific geologic feature, and the only one who gave me any information about this flood, so I am awarding you best answer. I may try this again in the future and see if anyone has info that can substantiate this claim.

Answer 1

I'm not sure what your looking for in your question but I can confirm for you the flood;

If you ever get a chance to go to the Grand Canyon. Go to one of thier seminars On the flood. They will show you the section of the canyon where the earth was once covered by water. You can see for yourself where sea creatures, land creatures,
focelized plants from around the world all mixed up in over 1200 feet below the current surface of the earth.

It's also notible that no matter where you go on the face of the earth every culture of mankind has the story of the flood in one manner or another. That includes even the most remote tribes in the forest, deserts, Islands, and also the north and south pole regions where very few people live. These people don't have a Bible and in most cases don't even know what a Bible is, so how did they get that history if it didn't happen. The Japanese writing for rain is an ark with eight survivers in it and it has been that way for thousands of years.

The American native indian tribes all have the story of a great flood with human survivors. Thats one of the reasons they have a rain god. Also on some of thier totem poles are engraved and ark with people inside. And these kind of stories are told in every tribe known to man and they have never been christianised and some tribes don't communicate in writing but they have communicated with society with drawings. Those who have communicated with us in drawings also drew out a flood at one time long ago with survivors.

Sincerely yours,
Fred M. Hunter

Answer 2

Don't beat yourself up for not understanding the creationist point of view. Creationism is not a science any more than evolution is a religion or Darwin a prophet (two of their absurd claims).

Science takes time and patience to understand. Answers don't come easy, and theories turn out to be wrong or in need of modification. Modern geology does provide the best explanations for the processes that shape the Earth.

Back in the 1960s, an American creationist Henry Morris attempted to show how the Biblical flood shaped the Earth of today. Morris believed his background in hydraulic engineering somehow made him an expert in geology. Yet many believe his ideas about a six day creation and a Great Flood prove the Bible's scientific accuracy.

Don't expect logical explanations from advocates of creationism. But I'm biased.

.

Answer 3

None that is conclusive. The best creationist scientists have come up with is finding seashells and stuff in mountains, but then ignore the numerous scientific possibilities as to why that would happen. Then they point out that the grand canyon was caused by the flood and stuff, and it starts to make me nauseous with inaccuracies. The bottom line is, there may have been a flood in the Jerusalem region, but that was just the limit if it even happened.

Answer 4

it says so in the bible, and the bible is the word of god. seriously, that is their evidence. they are sure that any physical evidence that appears to contradict that view (i.e. just about all of it) must be wrong somehow, and they engage in endless cherry picking and misunderstanding of science while trying to show this. my biased opinion, naturally.

Answer 5

Take sandstone of different colors from different layers. Mix it in water. The sand will not layer in the same colors.