Angular unconformities
First, for those unfamiliar with angular unconformities, the observable facts:
"The sedimentary rocks, which were originally deposited horizontally in accordance with the Law of Original Horizontality have been deformed by structural forces, tectonics, uplift, and then erosion has taken over, truncated and cut off the edges. Later, the seas return and new layers were deposited on top.
Now one must identify what evolutionists claim the significance of angular unconformities is?
"So the implications of angular unconformity is that there has been a great time lapse between the original deposition and the subsequent deposition."
While reading extensively on this topic, mostly from the evolutionist point of view, one theme resonates over and over. There is not enough time to account for the original layers and subsequent erosion prior to deposition of sediment on top of the "unconformities" thus "proving" that there was no recent flood. In order for this theory to stand, a few things must be presumed:
Plate tectonics are a constant (uniformitarianism)
In the event of a worldwide flood, hydroaction is consistent worldwide
The bulk of the water was deposited by atmospheric condensation
Very little geologic change has occurred since the flood
The original layers in the angular unconformities were supposedly layed down by the same flood that deposited layers on top of them
There may be more, but for the sake of brevity, I will jump right into what the Bible says happened, to see if it is supported by the evidence:
The Biblical Account of the Flood
(Gen 7:11 said:
...on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.
The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered
I have highlighted three issues the Bible directly addresses: fountains of the deep "broken up" indicating a cataclysmic event on the crust of the earth, waters prevailing "exceedingly" on the earth , indicating enormous potential for erosion and deposition and finally, all the mountains covered by water.
Do the facts .... does the evidence support this? YES! YES! and YES! With the possibility of a literal translation of the flood account, taking into consideration the "fountains of the deep" having "broken up" we would expect to see some dramatic evidence of such. Ironically the existence of angular unconformities SUPPORTS this possiblity. The original deposition could easily be explained in the original creation as earth was described in "chaos". The massive amount of erosion required by "excessively prevailing water" is not only present and consistent with the flood, but is questioned by old-earther's by it's very magnitude. Finally, even old-earther's admit that there is compelling evidence that every part of the dry land including the highest mountain peaks were at one time underwater (even if before upheaval). Is this not exactly what the food account details? YES!
Finally, on the issue I raised above about the presumption that little geological change occurred since the flood, Several issues contradict that. First the 15 cubit height of the risen waters does not account for today's highest peaks, indicating that the known mountains of Noah's day were significantly lower. (although I personally believe that the way the passage reads - the waters toped the highest peake of the time by 15 cubits) Redistribution of land animals suggests many land bridges existed which have since submerged (Existing historical accounts refer to a time when Great Britain was joined to Europe for example). Finally, by the mention of man's lifespan before and after the flood, we may reasonably conclude some catastrophic and major changes to the surface and atmosphere of the planet took place - having a detrimental effect on all life. Again, we have an abundance of current evidence supporting all these claims including but not limited to decaying ozone layer, decaying magetic field and rapid field reversals, increasing distance between the earth and moon, and the effect of the moon on the earth's slowing rotation and deteriorating, corrupted gene pool.
So ironically, what the old-earther's use as questionable evidence against a flood, is actually as strong an evidence FOR the flood as you could expect - if it did indeed happen as written. Now I have one final potential fomula supporting the literal flood. First - what the Bible says happened:
(Gen 7:21-23) said:
And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath *of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.
Now if this flood actually happened as written, then population statistics should also reasonably coincide with a re-population beginning with the family of Noah - the survivors of the flood. Do they hold up under scrutiny?
Lets' take a look:
The present rate of population increase in the world is more than two per cent per year, and the population is now over four billion. [This figure was correct when Dr. Morris wrote this. The figure is now much higher. Creation Tips editor.] However, the average rate would only have to be one half of one per cent per year to produce the present world population in 4,300 years.
To put it another way, an average family size of only 2.5 children per family would suffice to develop the present population in just the length of time since Noah, even with an average life-span of only about 40 years per person.
These figures are very reasonable, and in fact extremely conservative, showing that the Bible chronology is quite plausible in every way. http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/flooddate.html
There are pages upon pages of debates on this topic but one can hardly deny the obvious -given almost any scenario, the population (adjusted for periodic catastrophy) is very close to what would be expected given the recorded history of mankind and population statistics along the way.
These are but a paltry few of the recognizable facts as easily supporting the literal flood as anyone claims they disprove it. One does not have to become a rocket scientist to understand them either. The creation account and the flood account leave us to expect to find evidence of catastrophic changes on our planet, and when they are produced, they are questioned by virtue of their very magnitude. How ironic.
The Bible goes out of it's way to tell us God created man by a direct act (not millions of years of evolution) that all was created in 6 24 hour days, that there was a global flood, that sampson slew 1,000 men with a jawbone, that Elijah made an axe head float, that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, that people used to live to be over 900 years old.................You can refuse to accept it all you want, but GOD SAID IT, I BELIEVE IT AND THAT SETTLES IT. Make fun of me, call me an idiot--you only strengthen my resolve to stand for the Bible. I wear your insults as a badge of honor 
