The TRVE history of the Flood...

So do you think that the Lord's 1000 year rule started in 1997?!? (Not 1996; there is no year zero.) Not amazing at all. Before Bishop Ussher, lots of people had tried to calculate the date of creation, all with different results. But Bishop Ussher believed (as you do) that the 7 days of creation were symbolic for 7 millennia. So he "rigged" his calculations to come up with 4004 BC, exactly 4000 years before Jesus' birth.

As you note, the Bible gives very few details of the effects of Noah's Flood. There is no mention of rock strata laid down, canyons carved, etc.In short, none of modern "Flood Geology" is biblical; it is all extra-biblical speculation.The "Young earth" view goes back to antiquity, but "flood geology" does not. "Flood geology" only dates back a century or so, to George McReady Price, a non-geologist who invented it to support Ellen G. White. (See "The Creationists" by Ronald Numbers for more historical details on this.)Besides being unbiblical, "Flood geology" is opposed by most Christian professional geologists. See, for example the Affiliation of Christian Geologists and Solid Rock Lectures.I seriously considered Flood Geology views when I was younger. But when I took up spelunking as a hobby in high school and college, I realized that Flood Geology simply made no sense and was not credible. A single flood would have had to lay down hundreds to thousands of feet of limestone, then allow it to harden, then carve cave channels into it, then allow the water to drain, then form stalactites and stalagmites in an accelerated manner (they have layers, similar to tree rings). All of this within one year, due to a single flood?!? It's a ridiculous scenario!

God's ways are often counter-intuitive. This is true in His dealings with man, His way of salvation, and in the way He operates His creation. When we think we just KNOW something by intuition rather than by careful study, we need to catch ourselves and force ourselves to do a careful study of the matter."Flood Geology" seems intuitively reasonable at first glance. But when one starts to study the details, it quickly collapses.Regarding the Grand Canyon, I highly recommend the recent book, The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth: Can Noah's Flood Explain the Grand Canyon?. A number of the authors are friends of mine, involved in either the Affiliation of Christian Geologists or in Solid Rock Lectures.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

I raised spelunking just as a simple anecdote that others could possibly relate to. My objections to "flood geology" are much deeper and evidence-based. They are in part based on a college geology course that I took at a leading Christian college, in part due to graduate and post-doctoral work in radioisotope dating, and in part due to discussions with numerous friends who are Christian professional geologists.Here are two facts to consider:
1) "Flood geology" advocates are in the minority, even among Evangelical Christian geologists.
2) "Flood geology" is an extra-biblical recent invention, only about 100 years old.Even if you are convinced of YEC, it is very dangerous to hitch your wagon to "flood geology". Numerous extra-biblical quasi-scientific YEC arguments have been abandoned over the years (see lists from CMI and AIG); hopefully "flood geology" will eventually join them.

I have not seen you present any scientific arguments for a recent global Flood in this thread. All I've seen are some general observations that, in your opinion, seem to make sense in a global Flood context.If you are interested in actual arguments, I've given you a number of links to Christian professional geologists who debunk "flood geology" arguments and claims. You certainly have the personal freedom to reject the authority of experts in the field, to reject scientific data, to reject history, and to add extra-biblical teachings such as "flood geology" to Scripture. But I don't recommend it.

And the Greenland ice core goes back 100,000 years, with no evidence of a large missing section due to melting from a flood, and no abrupt discontinuity. This is evidence that NO flood covered Greenland in the last 100,000 years.

But Faith, you are conflating the text with the YEC interpretation of the text. Even if the text is divinely inspired and inerrant, human interpretations are not. Gen 1-11 is especially difficult to interpret, because the accounts are very condensed and include a significant amount of imagery (starting with chapter 12, the accounts slow down and become much more detailed).One fundamental question: when the author says that the Flood covered "the whole earth" or "all the earth", what did he mean? Is this "all" from God's perspective, or from the narrator's perspective? If the latter, the author was likely referring to "all" of the known earth, not the entire globe (just as when Paul said that the gospel had spread to all the earth; he meant all of the known earth, I.e. all of the Roman Empire).

The same thing can be treated as both a claim and as evidence, however. For example, we normally take radiocarbon dates as evidence of actual age. But the radiocarbon date could also be viewed as a claim that is dependent on the sample not being contaminated, the laboratory measurements being done correctly, etc. Once we are convinced that the dating was done correctly, we treat it as evidence on which to rest more claims.