Potential Evidence for a Global Flood

In lieu of a firm date for a global flood, we could try to find a close correlation of dates for deposits formed by flooding. Since we have witnessed countless local floods throughout history, there is very little reason to doubt the occurance of local floods in prehistory as well. And indeed, we do find geologic evidence of such floods.Now, creationists have often pointed to such deposits and claimed them to be evidence of their single world-wide flood. However, for that claim to carry any kind of weight, then those deposits must all be the same age. Instead of asking Jzyehoshua to provide a firm date, we should at least ask him for the dates of the geologic deposits that he cites as evidence for the Flood and for him to show that close correlation of dates that would be necessary.The closest thing to a world-wide flood that I can think of would be the change in sea level at the end of an ice age. From what I had read, at the end of the last one, c. 11,000 BCE, sea level rose about 200 feet, which certainly would have inundated low-lying coastal regions, regions that typically attract human populations. I would be very surprised if such an event had not been noticed and retold in many wide-spread oral traditions.

No, obviously impact printing. What with all that all that OT smiting.

Several years ago in a Yahoo groups forum, a creationist had posted/regurgitated the sea-sodium claim pointing out that it showed that the earth could be no older than several millions of years. After educating him on residence times (including aluminum's residence time of 100 years, which H. Morris had mentioned in passing and dismissed with a "huh, wonder what that could mean"), to which he admitted that this claim was wrong and that he shouldn't use it, I posed that same question to him: if your position is that the earth is only about 10,000 years old, then doesn't using a claim that the earth is several millions of years of just disprove your own position? His response was that it didn't matter at all to him if the earth were found to be millions of years old, just so long as it isn't billions of years old like science says it is.IOW, the creationist goal isn't to come up with the age of the earth or ages that are consistent with their pre-determined conclusion, but solely to disprove science.That exchange also provided me with a big "a-ha!". I also asked him why he kept using such lame and unconvincing arguments. He responded with, "you only find them unconvincing becauseyou are not already convinced." Aha! So the truth or validity of a creationist claim does not matter, but rather what really matters, the only thing that matters, is that the claim sound convincing. And to whom especially must the claim sound convincing? To those who are already convinced: the creationists themselves.Also, despite his having admitted that his sea-sodium claim was wrong, a month or two later I saw him still using it on somebody else. When I cut in to remind him of what he had admitted, he immediately left that discussion ... and I think also didn't post for a while. That taught more something about their ethics and tactics. Or did it just reenforce what I had already learned?