Apparent Age of Universe and Earth

[juvenissun]

Has it ever occurred to you that one of the main reasons Flood Geology exists in creationism is to find an explanation for fossils?

I don't think so. It is not an easy task to do and they are asking a lot of troubles. It is only one of the problem they have to iron out by insisting a global flood.​

What we are rejecting is creationism.

What is that?​

What you are doing by equating creation and creationism is helping atheism.

I really do not know the difference. I need some definitions on them.​

So please stop making the job of militant atheists easier. With friends like you, we Christians don't need any enemies.

I am not trying to help atheist. I am trying to help Christian.

 

[juvenissun]

Sure we would. We don't need sedimentary rock to survive. We need sediments, so God could create some thick topsoil, but no sedimentary rock.

Sure we would. We see young isotopes from the decay of long-lived isotopes to short lived ones. So God already gave us the means to learn about how the earth works.

......

Keep dodging, Juvenissen, but in trying to preserve your god of a literal Bible, you destroy God. I would rather smash your false-idol god and keep the real God.

The discussion gets too long and too tedious. It is better to break it down to shorter specifics. You are trying to mess with geological details. Then it would definitely needs to be very spedific. Because any tiny argument could be expanded into a long essay.

So, only the sediments stuff is replied here. If no sedimentary rock lies beneath the sediments, then the hydrology on the earth would be disasterous. Also there would be no limestone, which is a critical part in the control of earth's temperature.

This is an example to illustrate that we could not wishfully change what we do not like to see (the evidences of OE) and still maintain other parts of the earth dynamics. Everything we know about the earth are tied together. If God created an earth which physically looks young (as a result, YE is an obvious fact), either we would be entirely different beings (may not be in God's image any more), or we do not exist (God will not put us on a "young planet" as one we understand it now, because Adam and Eve will surely die very quickly on that kind of planet after they were kicked out of Eden).

 

[Melethiel]

If God created an earth which physically looks young (as a result, YE is an obvious fact), either we would be entirely different beings (may not be in God's image any more)

Define "image of God." Is it physical? Can only hominids be in the image of God?

 

[Assyrian]

First, I am not a 100% YEC. I am also not defending their position.

That's cool then. It is a good opportunity for you to throw some of the standard YEC arguments into the ring to see how they do. Hopefully we can answer some of your own questions in the process.

I think the "Day" Moses said is still just a normal "day", at least to Moses. What does the "day" mean to God is up to God, like Moses suggested.

It matters to us when God speaks to us 'days'. If Moses then tells us God's days are very different to ours, we need to be careful not to assume the days God speaks about are our days instead of his.

If so (not done in six days), what does the 7th day, the sabbath day mean?

According to Paul the Sabbath is a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ Col 2:17.

Read Hebrews 3&4 as well. according to the author, God's seventh day rest is still going on and we are commanded to enter into it.

Heb 4:4 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works."
5 And again in this passage he said, "They shall not enter my rest."
6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience,
7 again he appoints a certain day, "Today," saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts."
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on.
9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God,
10 for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.
11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.

 

[Assyrian]

I do not know what to say about the sun. Where does the scripture say that the sun orbits the earth?

Try Eccles 1:5The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. This verse was used by Luther's second in command Melanchthon to argue against Copernicus. Luther used Joshua's miraculous long day as an argument. Joshua commanded the sun to stop.

You see you gave us the classic YEC argument aganist science:

When we see some scripture "obviously" violates the scientific understanding, we make a different interpretation (to avoid being called stupid). However, I believe if we know better (in the future), we will find the scripture is literally right afterall. There are numerous such examples in the Book of Job. They do not make any sense until recent decades.

Well heliocentrism is an clear case from church history where science violated the then obvious meaning of scripture. If people reject science for YEC on this basis they should also reject the heliocentric solar system.

It is worth pointing out that in the early church there were literalists calling for a return to a flat earth and a rejection of the pagan philosophy that said the world was a sphere. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/awiesner/cosmas.html Sensibly the rest of the church ignored them. It is worth reading what Augustine had said a century or so before this. It applies just as well today.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an unbeliever to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1, Chapter 19.​

But I do think I can accept the idea of pillars on earth. To me, I can understand the pillar indicates the root of continent. It tapers off into the mantle. And the scripture does say the pillar shakes. It is a perfect image of earthquake. The "earth" could well be the "continent" as we still use it this way commonly.

So when it talks of God flooding the 'earth'..?

 

[juvenissun]

Define "image of God." Is it physical? Can only hominids be in the image of God?

Definition: A visible form projected from God and can reveal some critical natures of God.

Example: A dog is not such an image, even a dog sort has a faithful nature.

 

[juvenissun]

Try Eccles 1:5The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. This verse was used by Luther's second in command Melanchthon to argue against Copernicus. Luther used Joshua's miraculous long day as an argument. Joshua commanded the sun to stop.

Thanks. And this is a perfect example to illustrate the case from the opposite angle.

What the Eccles verse does is only a description, nothing more. The decription could be interpreted one way or the other. While it was a puzzle to historical people, it is not a problem to us. It is a good example to show that the advance of science DOES NOT invalidate the scripture.

So, science should not be used to falsify the scripture. This was true then and is still true now.

The geo/helicentric saga of early churches is more political than scientific.

 

[Melethiel]

Definition: A visible form projected from God and can reveal some critical natures of God.

Example: A dog is not such an image, even a dog sort has a faithful nature.

So is a person who is born deformed not in the image of God? I think you need to re-think your idea of what "image of God" means.

 

[Assyrian]

Thanks. And this is a perfect example to illustrate the case from the opposite angle.

What the Eccles verse does is only a description, nothing more. The decription could be interpreted one way or the other. While it was a puzzle to historical people, it is not a problem to us. It is a good example to show that the advance of science DOES NOT invalidate the scripture.

It says the sun moves around the earth. It rises, it sets and it hurries around to the place where it rises again.

While alternative interpretation seems obvious to you, it had never occurred to anyone before Copernicus came on the scene. Is it right to propose a completely novel reinterpretation of scripture just to fit in with science? Well yes. Of course we should. And we should be willing to do the same with the age of the earth and evolution.

So, science should not be used to falsify the scripture. This was true then and is still true now.

Science never falsifies scripture however it can and does falsify misinterpretations of scripture. The difference between todays old earth/evolution, and heliocentrism in Luther's day is that there have always been other interpretations that said the days in Genesis are not literal or that when God command the earth to bring forth lving creatures he was actually investing inanimate matter with the ability to produce life (St Basil). In contrast there had never been an interpretation of scripture that was heliocentric. Everyone had always through that the verses that talked of the sun rising or travelling around the earth, or the earth being fixed meant exactly what they said.

The geo/helicentric saga of early churches is more political than scientific.

Don't underestimate the deep sincerity with which the church at this time defended the literal meaning of scripture against this new scientific innovation. This was a deeply troubling time and the very foundation of divine inspiration seemed under threat. Sound familiar?

 

[juvenissun]

Is it right to propose a completely novel reinterpretation of scripture just to fit in with science? Well yes. Of course we should. And we should be willing to do the same with the age of the earth and evolution.

Science never falsifies scripture however it can and does falsify misinterpretations of scripture. The difference between todays old earth/evolution, and heliocentrism in Luther's day is ...

Let me make the rest of your point more clear:

Early church time

The science was correct, the interpretion of scripture was wrong Church people accused the science by the wrong interpretation of scripture, but not by science.​

Today

The science is in question, the interpretation of scripture is in question. YEC people are arguing the science, which leads to an interpretation of scripture. Notice that we are not repeating the same mistake made by people in early church.​

In both cases, the scripture is correct. What we should do now is to work harder on science, but not to eagerly falsify the scripture by questionable science.

So, to criticize YEC's interpretation of scripture by uncertain science is not adequate. If people can, they should criticize YEC's science by science. Just leave the scripture alone.

Unfortunately, since most people are not be able to criticize the science of either side, so they simply quote their favorite shaky science to support their interpretation of scripture. Hence the chaos.

However, one important recognition among the chaos is that the current OE science is not be able to prove that the science of YEC is wrong. So non-YEC people should not use science to claim that the YEC's interpretation of the scripture is wrong. And vice versa.

Boy, I wish I could make the argument much simpler. I don't think I made it clearer after all. But I do identified three common elements in all arguments:

1. correct science
2. shaky science
3. the scripture

At last: an example of shaky science claim: "A global flood is not possible". How should honest people treat this claim? Not by quoting the scripture to "prove" it is wrong (like the early church people), but by science (YEC people are not doing a great job, but they are doing it. That merits some praises)

 

[juvenissun]

So is a person who is born deformed not in the image of God? I think you need to re-think your idea of what "image of God" means.

Good question. I can not answer it.

Do you have a good one?

 

[Melethiel]

The Image of God is not physical, but spiritual.

 

[Assyrian]

Let me make the rest of your point more clear:


Early church time

The science was correct, the interpretion of scripture was wrong Church people accused the science by the wrong interpretation of scripture, but not by science.​

Today

The science is in question, the interpretation of scripture is in question. YEC people are arguing the science, which leads to an interpretation of scripture. Notice that we are not repeating the same mistake made by people in early church.​

In both cases, the scripture is correct. What we should do now is to work harder on science, but not to eagerly falsify the scripture by questionable science.

So, to criticize YEC's interpretation of scripture by uncertain science is not adequate. If people can, they should criticize YEC's science by science. Just leave the scripture alone.

Unfortunately, since most people are not be able to criticize the science of either side, so they simply quote their favorite shaky science to support their interpretation of scripture. Hence the chaos.

However, one important recognition among the chaos is that the current OE science is not be able to prove that the science of YEC is wrong. So non-YEC people should not use science to claim that the YEC's interpretation of the scripture is wrong. And vice versa.

Boy, I wish I could make the argument much simpler. I don't think I made it clearer after all. But I do identified three common elements in all arguments:

1. correct science
2. shaky science
3. the scripture

At last: an example of shaky science claim: "A global flood is not possible". How should honest people treat this claim? Not by quoting the scripture to "prove" it is wrong (like the early church people), but by science (YEC people are not doing a great job, but they are doing it. That merits some praises)

No there are 6 elements. We have

1. the universe God created
2. good science
3. bad science
4. Scripture
5. good interpretation
6. and bad interpretation

And good science only ever contradicts bad science and bad interpretations.

During the Galileo controversy, his opponents used both scripture (literally interpreted) and the science of the day to oppose the new heliocentric theory. The new science seemed to contradict scripture, but as you realise it was just a wrong interpretation of scripture that was challenged.

It is the same today. Science contradicts the YEC interpretation of scripture and they try to contradict it with both their interpretation of scripture and with bad science. There is no real difference, just science showing up a bad interpretation of scripture.

The only differences are
1) there have always been other interpretations of the Genesis days while the reinterpretation of geocentrist passages was completely new.
2) there is much more science supporting an ancient earth and evolution than there was supporting heliocentrism when it was accepted by both scientists and the church.

Of course we should use science to correct bad interpretations. The Galileo affair made the church look foolish for centuries. The sooner Christians realise the YEC interpretation is bad science and wrong interpretation, the better it is for the church. Think how bad it would be for the gospel if loads of Christians still claimed the sun went around the earth.

 

[lucaspa]

However, I believe if we know better (in the future), we will find the scripture is literally right afterall.

This ignores that science started out with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8. It was from that literal interpretation that science built the theories of a young earth and flood geology.

However, what people found out (and those people were all Christians and many of them were ministers) was that scripture was not literally right. That's past tense, not future tense.

Clinging to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8 denies God in His second book: Creation.

 

[lucaspa]

Good question. I can not answer it.

Do you have a good one?

Yes. "image of ..." is a phrase that is not used anymore but was quite common when Genesis 1 was written. I once had a Biblical scholar explain to me that "in his image" had a definite meaning in that time. Because communication was so poor, an ambassador or representative of a merchant would be given power to negotiate binding treaties or contracts without referring back to the king or merchant. Such an ambassador would be said to be "in the image" or "in his image" of the king or merchant. So the phrase "in his image" in Genesis 1 doesn't really refer to either physical or spiritual appearance, but empowerment. God is telling humans that they are free to act on the environment. That what they do they do "in the image" of God, or with God's full backing. This is seen in the juxtaposition in Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea ..." We tend to separate the image from the dominion, but it appears that those were two ways of saying the same thing. To be "in his image" was also to be given plenipoteniary powers and have dominion.

 

[lucaspa]

I am not trying to help atheist. I am trying to help Christian.

What you are trying to do and what you are actually doing are different here. I understand you have good motives. What I'm trying to get you to understand is that you are getting bad results.

Originally Posted by lucaspa
Has it ever occurred to you that one of the main reasons Flood Geology exists in creationism is to find an explanation for fossils?

I don't think so. It is not an easy task to do and they are asking a lot of troubles. It is only one of the problem they have to iron out by insisting a global flood.​

What we are rejecting is creationism.

What is that?​

​

Creation: the belief that God created the heavens and the earth.

Creationism: a particular method by which God created the heavens and the earth. This method is derived by insisting on a particular human interpretation of Genesis 1-8.

Science: a particular method by which God created the heavens and the earth. This method is derived from studying God's Creation.

Creationism, particularly the young earth creationism you are advocating, says that God zapped everything into existence during a 144 hour period in their present form about 6,000 - 20,000 years ago. That "in their present form" is critical. It says God made everything, from stars and the earth to species, intact and in their present form.

What I'm hoping to get you to see is that God created, but does not have to create by creationism. IOW, God can (and did) create by the processes discovered by science. Genesis 1-8 tells theological truths. Not historical ones.

Paleontology does not deny that God created, but tells us how God created. God didn't either speak men and women into existence (as in Genesis 1) nor form one man from dust and one woman from the man's rib (as in Genesis 2). Instead, God tells us that He created humans by the process of evolution from H. erectus. The transitional individuals that connect H. erectus and us -- H. sapiens -- have been found. It is like God shouting "I did it by evolution!"

 

[lucaspa]

Today

The science is in question, the interpretation of scripture is in question. YEC people are arguing the science, which leads to an interpretation of scripture.
In both cases, the scripture is correct. What we should do now is to work harder on science, but not to eagerly falsify the scripture by questionable science.​

​

No,the science is NOT in question. What we have in YEC people are people who deny the science. YEC start with an interpretation of scripture and then warp God to fit. Instead, we are supposed to be listening to God, not trying to dictate to God.

So, to criticize YEC's interpretation of scripture by uncertain science is not adequate. If people can, they should criticize YEC's science by science. Just leave the scripture alone.

Criticizing YEC's science by science has already been done. That's how YEC got shown to be wrong to begin with: see the first quote in my signature. That was written by Christians.

However, a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8 can also be criticized based on the text of Genesis 1-8. IOW, what we can show is that, by the text, a literal interpretation is wrong. So God is telling us YEC is wrong by two ways: His Creation (science) and scripture.

However, one important recognition among the chaos is that the current OE science is not be able to prove that the science of YEC is wrong.

Oh yes, the science does prove a young earth is wrong. In fact, science did that by 1831.

At: an example of shaky science claim: "A global flood is not possible". How should honest people treat this claim? Not by quoting the scripture to "prove" it is wrong (like the early church people), but by science (YEC people are not doing a great job, but they are doing it. That merits some praises)

And the science already did that. Remember, true statements cannot have false consequences. The statement "A global flood happened" has false consequences. Millions of them.

Because there is evidence that simply cannot be there if a global flood happened, the statement "A global flood is not possible" is true. Let me give you some of those consequences by a geologist that is also an evangelical Christian:

"I went on to criticize the flood geology of Whitcomb and Morris, introducing some still valid geological arguments that had not previously appeared in discussions of the deluge.
1. I argued that known rates of heat flow from bodies of crystallizing magma pose problems for those who contend that all fossil-bearing rocks were laid down during the single year of the biblical flood. On the New Jersey side of the Hudson River opposite Manhattan, there is a geological formation known as the Palisades sill, a thick sheet of rock of igneous origin that intruded into red sandstones and shales, Flood geologists of the Whitcomb-Morris school hold that the sand-stones and shales were laid down during the course of the flood, and hence they would logically have to assert that the magma was injected into this material during the course of the flood, cooled, hardened, tilted, and eroded before the other flood sediments settled atop it. But this would not have been possible. We know on the basis of heat flow considerations and the thickness of the sill that it would have taken several hundred years to cool and crystallize in the way it now appears. Indeed, many other much larger igneous rock bodies would have re-quired thousands to hundreds of thousands of years to lose their heat in order to crystallize. Flood geologists have made little attempt to refute this line of evidence.
2. Radiometric dating of igneous formations of the sort men-tioned above - formations that according to the Whitcomb-Morris theory must have been produced within the space of a single year -suggest that they are in fact millions of years old. These figures are consistent with ages predicted on the basis of stratigraphical relation-ships with the intruded rocks. Similar examples can be multiplied many times over
3. The phenomena of metamorphism also pose problems for flood geology. In some localities, fossils are found in rocks that also bear evidence of having undergone significant changes (metamorphism) as a result of having been exposed to very high temperatures and pressures. The problem for flood geologists is to show how a sedimen-tary rock, which they contend was formed at the surface of the earth during the course of the flood, could have been buried and heated fast enough to metamorphose. Both heat flow theory and known rates of chemical reactions indicate that such rocks could not possibly have undergone the observed metamorphism within a single year
4. A wealth of evidence associated with modern discoveries about continental drift and sea floor spreading indicate that various kinds of rocks - including varieties that the flood geologists maintain were formed during the course of the flood - must have been formed both before and after the separation of continents. If the flood geologists are right, this would imply that the continents must have been drifting apart substantially during the course of the flood. But thousands of miles of continental drift within the space of a few months is completely inconsistent with any known rates of drift.
I concluded the book with a look at Scripture, arguing that the biblical data (Gen. 2 in particular) suggest that pre-flood geography was fundamentally the same as post-flood geography which precludes the possibility of a global deluge involving a wholesale reorganization of terrestrial surface features. I also affirmed my belief that the biblical flood was in fact a historical event and not merely myth or legend. It was my intent to show how Christians could endorse the idea of a historical flood without having to commit themselves to a flood geology theory that is thoroughly in conflict with the data of creation." Davis A Young, The Biblical Flood, Pp 273-274.

 

[juvenissun]

[/INDENT]Creation: the belief that God created the heavens and the earth.
Creationism: a particular method by which God created the heavens and the earth. This method is derived by insisting on a particular human interpretation of Genesis 1-8.

This is fine. However, I don't think many people are aware of such definitions. I don't think the word "Creationism" should be reserved only for YEC people.

Science:

a particular method by which God created the heavens and the earth. This method is derived from studying God's Creation.

The key difference between us is right here. I agreed on the first sentence, but not on the second.

Science is not derived from studying creation. If so, it suggests that if we do not study creation, then there would be no science. Creation results in menifestation via "material". There are sciences that do not deal with material at the beginning.

I would say science is the expression of wisdom given to us by God.

It is like God shouting "I did it by evolution!"

If it possible, but I would only put a small bet on it. Because I see too many problems in it (I am going to initiate one in another thread). I still think that it is true that men are made from dust. How was it done as understood by science, I do not know. Here is where the faith comes in. I truly think the problem OE faced is not less or lighter than that of YE.

Science leads to faith. Science does not prove faith. If OE leads you to your faith, that is fine. But do not jump too early to say YE is wrong. We simply do not know yet.

 

[juvenissun]

[/INDENT]
The statement "A global flood happened" has false consequences. Millions of them.

OK, It would be useless to say more. I am going to stick with this one to illustrate my point. I know it is super easy to refute the idea of a global flood. But, all those arguments could not rule out the possibility.

I am not sure how to handle the thread problem, but I would start right here:

If the earth surface were leveled, there would be enough water, after the global flood, to cover the whole earth.

Now, the problem turns to: how could the earth surface be so leveled? I don't know (I understand plate tectonics and the origin of continent, you can save the argument). But we have examples from planet Venus and Mars. The surface of Venus and Mars are pretty leveled (not due to erosion) when compared to that of the Earth. If Venus and Mars have it, why couldn't the Earth?

You think we know the science well to reject YE. I don't think so.

 

[lucaspa]

This is fine. However, I don't think many people are aware of such definitions. I don't think the word "Creationism" should be reserved only for YEC people.

Whether they are aware or not has nothing to do with whether they should be aware.

I did use YEC as a subset of creationism. The commonality of all forms of creationism is:
1. God created some things instantaneously in their present form.
2. One of those things is human beings. All forms of creationism have humans being specially created.

Science is not derived from studying creation. If so, it suggests that if we do not study creation, then there would be no science. Creation results in menifestation via "material". There are sciences that do not deal with material at the beginning.

All science studies the physical universe. What did God create? The physical universe, right? Therefore all science studies Creation -- what God created. I think you have mistaken the noun form for a verb form. You think "creation" means how things originated. That's not the definition I am using.

Gravity is part of Creation. It is also the means of the creation of galaxies, stars, and planets.

Now, why don't you think science is also a method by which God created? Couldn't God have created by the methods discovered by science?

I would say science is the expression of wisdom given to us by God.

If that is so, then why do you reject science so frequently? That would mean you are rejecting God.

If it possible, but I would only put a small bet on it. Because I see too many problems in it (I am going to initiate one in another thread). I still think that it is true that men are made from dust. How was it done as understood by science, I do not know.

Science doesn't need to know the exact mechanism by which God turned dust into proteins, lipids, sugars, DNA, etc.

But no, God is telling us in His Creation that He did not create humans this way. Creating the way you say has certain consequences. One of those is that there are not going to be fossils of individuals that have features of both H. erectus and H. sapiens. Or of H. erectus and H. habilis. Or fossils of individuals that have features of both H. habilis and A. afarensis. Instead, IF what you say is true, then there are only going to be fossils of modern H. sapiens.

Instead, that isn't what we see. We see instead a series of fossil individuals linking us to H. erectus, H. erectus to H. habilis, and H. habilis to A. afarensis. Individuals that are so in-between each species that we really can't say which species they are.

True statements cannot have false consequences. Since the statement "God created us from dust" has false consequences, it can't be true.

Here is where the faith comes in. I truly think the problem OE faced is not less or lighter than that of YE.

The data says otherwise.

Science leads to faith. Science does not prove faith. If OE leads you to your faith, that is fine. But do not jump too early to say YE is wrong. We simply do not know yet.

1. Wearing my scientist hat, science does not lead to faith. Science is agnostic. My faith comes from outside science. There is nothing in science to contradict my faith.

2. There was overwhelming evidence by 1831 to say that YE is wrong. Sorry. That's the way it is. To say "we simply do not know yet" is to turn your back on God and what He tells us in His Creation.

"Many evangelical Christians today suppose that Bible believers have always been in favor of a "young-universe" and "creationism." However, as any student of the history of geology (and religion) knows, by the 1850s all competent evangelical Christian geologists agreed that the earth must be extremely old, and that geological investigations did not support that the Flood "in the days of Noah" literally "covered the whole earth." Rev. William Buckland (head of geology at Oxford), Rev. Adam Sedgwick (head of geology at Cambridge), Rev. Edward Hitchcock (who taught natural theology and geology at Amherst College, Massachusetts), John Pye Smith (head of Homerton Divinity College), Hugh Miller (self taught geologist, and editor of the Free Church of Scotland's newspaper), and Sir John William Dawson (geologist and paleontologist, a Presbyterian brought up in a fundamentalist atmosphere, who also became the only person ever to serve as president of three of the most prestigious geological organizations of Britain and America), all rejected the "Genesis Flood" as an explanation of the geologic record (or any part of that record), and argued that it must have taken a very long time to form the various geologic layers. Neither were their conclusions based on a subconscious desire to support "evolution," since none of the above evangelical Christians were evolutionists, and the earliest works of each of them were composed before Darwin's Origin of Species was published. The plain facts of geology led them to acknowledge the vast antiquity of the earth. And this was before the advent of radiometric dating."

I would also suggest 2 books covering the history:

Davis A. Young The Genesis Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence

Gillespie: Genesis and Geology

You should be able to get both in your local public library. You can find part of the first online at:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm

And you can find more of the evidence showing YE to be wrong at
http://www.lordibelieve.org/page15.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Fischer.pdf

In fact, you will want to read most of what is at www.asa3.org