Beginning info on evidence of flood:
http://icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-006.htmWow. I thought you had to be the president of Oscar Mayer to produce such a huge pile of baloney.
The first half of the article just complains about mainstream geologists and, for some reason, Karl Marx. After that, the author settles down a bit and writes that sedimentary rock implies water. I don't see anything wrong with that paragraph.
But then he blows it when he writes:
The importance of this fact is obvious when one realizes that the identification of the geologic "age" of any given sedimentary rock depends solely upon the assemblage of fossils which it contains. [...] No, a rock is dated solely by its fossils.
which is wrong in every particular.
He then engages in a bit of hand-waving to make geologic unconformities support his conclusion. But he doesn't give any specifics, and his conclusion doesn't seem to follow from his argument.
Then we have
Creationist Claim CC310, that dating is circular. This is pure weapons-grade baloney.
He closes with a big finale,
Creationist Claim CH561.3, that fossils are sorted by their ability to escape rising floodwaters:
Fossils or birds and mammals are found only at the higher elevations because they live at higher elevations and also because they are more mobile and could escape burial longer. Human fossils are extremely rare because men would only very rarely be trapped and buried in flood sediments at all, because of their high mobility.
This is colloquially known as the "grass can outrun velociraptors" theory, since grass and flowering plants are only found above dinosaurs.
You may also want to read
Glenn Morton's Story in his own words. Morton was a young-earth creationist with the ICR until his work as a geologist convinced him that ICR was spreading lies.
Also, have you read ICR's
Tenets of Creationism, which basically say that they've already decide what The Truth is, and aren't interested in facts that contradict them? In other words, they're not interested in doing science.
