I am a geologist by training, if not by occupation.
I see this topic as being independent of young Earth or old Earth considerations. What I see as the essential time frame consideration is that the creationist perspective is that alleged flood event duration was about a year, and in that year vast amounts of sediment was eroded from an unknown source and redeposited as an uncertain but considerable portion of the Earth's various stratagraphies (not to mention all kinds of other geologic processes also having happened).
Studies of the various sediments and other events show evidence of a vast array of processes. The reality is that some of these would happen underwater, some would not, and some are independent of water cover considerations. All this points to a very long and complicated process, yet the creationist perspective is that it all was done by a 1 year flood event.
The creationist perspective is that the flood, directly or indirectly, can do pretty much anything and can do it in an incredibly short amount of time. That doesn't make sense regardless of when said flood happened, be it 5000 years ago, 4.5 billion years ago, or at any point in between.
The true story of the creation and the reworking of the creation can be discerned by looking at the creation. The true story is "written in the rocks".
Added by edit:
Minnemooseus, above, writes:
All this points to a very long and complicated process, yet the creationist perspective is that it all was done by a 1 year flood event.
Not only not done by a 1 year flood event, not done by any single flood event regardless of its duration.
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Didn't like my original subtitle.
I had very little to say in the debate as I usually don't debate the flood.
There is no way the 5 miles of rock that covers fossile fuels, oil in particular could be produced and deposited on the earth during a 1 year flood, and any life form exist.
So no, all creationsist do not believe that the flood produced the events that most YEC'S believe it did.
I personally do not believe it produced any more than is produced at the Bay of Fundy 2 times a day as the water rises and falls 55 feet every day and you can hardly tell it was there.
The Bible says the highest point was covered with 15 cubits of water. Using the largest cubit known that would be less than 30 feet.
Since there was only one mass of land at that time it could have all been 1 foot above sea level and the highest point could have been 3 feet above sea level. If the ark was built on the highest point on the land mass it did not even have to float as the door was over 35 feet from the ground.
Since the water came from all sides of the land mass as well as from the atmosphere and had 40 days to cover the highest point by less than 30 feet in 40 days.
The Bay of Fundy rises 55 feet in 6 hours.
So without the violent eruptions put forth by the YEC'S there would not be all the layers of sediment being preached in most of the flood threads here at EvC.
But if the Bay of Fundy can rise 55 feet in 6 hours and then fall 55 feet in 6 hours and you can't see everything washed away, why would anyone assume that if the water rose a few hundred feet in 40 days it would leave any sign that it did so?
Moose thinks it took a very long process for the layers of Earth to be formed, I agree with that statement.
The difference is that I think it took a few trillion years longer than he and everyone else does.
But for the vegetation and life forms to be formed and die and then be covered by miles of rock to produce the trillions of barrels of oil underground took a very long time.
That would take enough material to cover the vegetation and life forms by from 1 mile to 5 miles with rock.
So no, the flood spoken of in Genesis did not produce all that material.
Maybe one day we can discuss exactly what the Bible says about the flood. The problem with that is everyone here has already made up their mind what they believe the Bible says about the event.
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
A geolist's first obligation is textual comprehension. This requires grammatical prowess, especially taking the only open coherent path. The texts in the Noah story clearly states this event is a regional flood, limited to Noah's 'household and possessions'; thus no wild animals are seen in the list [not a typo!]; the verses describing all the earth and mountain tops submerged is both authentic and credible: it is how the flood would appeared to people of this region. The text is describing an ancient period when people never left their villages throughout their lives; when Tasmania and New York yet never existed.
The writings' credibility cannot be in doubt. When examined, we find all the math correct [the dimensions of the boat]; the geo-historical references are amazingly accurate [Mount Ararat is listed in its correct location for the first time!]; and the advanced alphabetical wiritings, seen for the first time, are transcendent. The 'NAMES' listed in the Noah geneology is proven as authentic of its period.
Floods do not build mountains and floods do not sort debris. Erosion from impounded water breaking through levees do not create the patterns seen in the Grand Canyon and other canyons, and especially do not produce the erosion patterns that winds produce. The erosion from these kinds of events is more consistent with the scablands: wide flat scoured troughs. Thus a biblical flood cannot explain the evidence of the Grand Canyon, the evidence of many long years of gradual erosion by wind and rain and the undercutting of the river at the bottom.
I agree with ICANT (Message 317) that it is unlikely that a flood of such short duration as the biblical flood would need to leave any significant evidence of the flood -- it is too short a time for marine growth to occur in the manner shown by the fossil evidence. This is why evidence for mass extinction is more critical, and Message 63 shows why that argument fails.