[DannyTN]

I've seen several write ups that point to the likelihood that the fossil record was primarily the result of the flood.

The flood would have put down layers of sediment which are now interpreted by some modern scientists as millions of years of sediment.

The flood would also explain things like why larger animals are found at the beginning of the fossil record. Or why fossilized trees are found standing through "millions" of years of sediment.

It would seem to be a better fit with the evidence, in my opinion.

[MattAMiller]

It sure doesn't explain why pollen varies according to where it is in the fossil record.

[Karsus]

What, in the Bible, leads you to believe the Earth is just a few thousand of years old?

Please understand, this is a serious question and I am not trying to start a flamewar, just have a discussion.

[jeremiah]

Bingo, right here...... I think the oceans are also the result, there was much less water on the ground, it was under the earth as suggested by "the fountains of the deep were opened" quote in the Bible. So the flood was a combination of water from above, and the much smaller oceans rising etc. There is lots of evidence, the Grand Canyon for instance, millions of years of passage, or a catastrophe of biblical magnitude?