Flood model hypotheses based upon the historicity of the Flood are falsifiable. See
http://creationwiki.org/Flood_geology
That appears to be a very comprehensive list of poor geology.
Let's look at this for instance:
Creation_Wiki said:
Flood geologists point to the existence of large oil deposits as the result of the accumulation of large amounts of dead plant and animal matter during the flood which were subsequently compressed below the surface. They argue that there is no evidence of fossil fuels being formed today, or any clear mechanism for how it could occur without catastrophe. They argue that the flood provides the necessary catastrophe.
Interesting that the
source rock for many oil fields is actually black shale. This forms in pretty quiet conditions. It's made up of very very small mineral particles that
won't settle out unless the water column is very still! (As a clay mineralogist how they settle out clays to study by X-ray diffraction some time.) Interesting how you can simultaneously generate a HUGE amount of this stuff which contains sufficient organic material as to form the oil (which is a thermal breakdown product of this stuff) in volumes sufficient to flow out to a
reservoir rock somewhere else.
Oh, yeah, and one other thing: how does the Flood kill off the requisite tons and tons and tons of algae and plankton necessary to make this all so very quickly? Especially considering that at any given single point in time I would wonder how much plankton was available. Were all the oceans green semi-solids of algal gunk for thousands and thousands of square miles?
And, even more interesting is the fact that various oil source rocks show
differing thermal histories indicating differing geologic histories.
How 'bout this as well:
CreationWiki said:
This is the fact that the remains of animals; particularly invertebrates; would tend to get sorted like any other form in moving water. Buoyancy , size and shape would all be factors. Buoyancy is one factor that cannot be determined from
fossils.
Uh, yeah. Except for the fact that many of the animals have analogues or direct equivalents on the earth today, which we can test their "bouyancy".
Do, please, tell me how "bouyant" coral is like modern corals versus rugose corals. Why don't we find
rugose corals significantly mixed in with modern corals throughout the geologic column?
CreationWiki said:
These flood geologists argue that massive liquefaction can explain phenomena such as transported blocks, sand plumes, coal and limestone deposits
Ohmygosh! Coal, explained by liquefaction? That's a first in my experience. (And I got my PhD in coal geology).
But even if you can dig up some bizarre example of a catastrophic flood coal (I dunno, never heard of one, but I won't doubt that something weird might exist), I should think it hard to explain the larger overall world of coal, including things like:
fusinite layers in a coal indicating
swamp fires that occasionally broke out. I should also think it hard to explain
underclays (probably the original soil horizon in coal swamps)...not to mention
CYCLOTHEMS which show repeated examples of swamp, oceanic intrusion, subaerial exposure, swamp, oceanic intrusion, subaerial exposure, swamp, oceanic intrusion...etc.
Over and over and over again. How many centuries did the Flood last again? How many Noachian Floods occurred in a row again?
