Tobytone
Verified User
You got me laughing so I truly thank you for that.
Evolutionary Theory, Creationism, Panspermia, Simulation Hypothesis? What say you? Any
- Thread starter Tobytone
- Start date
Scut Farkus
Best
Scut Farkus
Best
I also wish it wouldn't do this.
Scut Farkus
Best
Cross References
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Colossians 1:16-17
For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. / He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Hebrews 1:2-3
But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe. / The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
Revelation 19:13
He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and His name is The Word of God.
1 John 1:1
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands—this is the Word of life.
Philippians 2:6
Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
John 17:5
And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed.
1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.
Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Proverbs 8:22-30
The LORD created me as His first course, before His works of old. / From everlasting I was established, from the beginning, before the earth began. / When there were no watery depths, I was brought forth, when no springs were overflowing with water. ...
Micah 5:2
But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come forth for Me One to be ruler over Israel—One whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity.
Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Psalm 33:6
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all the stars by the breath of His mouth.
John 8:58
“Truly, truly, I tell you,” Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
John 17:24
Father, I want those You have given Me to be with Me where I am, that they may see the glory You gave Me because You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
Treasury of Scripture
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Colossians 1:16-17
For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. / He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Hebrews 1:2-3
But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe. / The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
Revelation 19:13
He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and His name is The Word of God.
1 John 1:1
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands—this is the Word of life.
Philippians 2:6
Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
John 17:5
And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed.
1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.
Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Proverbs 8:22-30
The LORD created me as His first course, before His works of old. / From everlasting I was established, from the beginning, before the earth began. / When there were no watery depths, I was brought forth, when no springs were overflowing with water. ...
Micah 5:2
But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come forth for Me One to be ruler over Israel—One whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity.
Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Psalm 33:6
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all the stars by the breath of His mouth.
John 8:58
“Truly, truly, I tell you,” Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
John 17:24
Father, I want those You have given Me to be with Me where I am, that they may see the glory You gave Me because You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
Treasury of Scripture
Tobytone
Verified User
I very much like John 1:1. It's interesting because it explains the difference between animals and a human with consciousness in very short order.
Tobytone
Verified User
I did find it incredibly useful. lol I'll never use theory in that way again. ROFL
Thanks esp. for your explanation of what a scientific theory is as opposed to common usage. I imagine that most flat Earthers accept germ theory, the theory of relativity, and the theory of gravity as realities not open to religious interpretation.
I've never heard any reputable scientists say scientific theories are complete and comprehensive truths about reality.
It might be that some laypersons misrepresent theories that way
We know that Newton's laws of motion don't work as you near the speed of light. We know that Einstein's theory of relativity does not work at the quantum scale. We know there are still questions about evolution, even if we basically have the general big picture nailed down.
My two cents is this: any holy roller who says that established theories are dubious just because there are still some unanswered questions is exaggerating. On the other hand, the layperson who claims well established theories have comprehensively established all facts and dispensed with all questions is also misrepresenting
Daylight63
Verified User
Is it just the "big numbers" that cause concern? Yeah, that's a lot of time. It's amazing. It's really the wonder and awe of our planet.
Want something even WEIRDER?
You know that sediments lay down in flat layers, right? You can't make a "layer of sand" standing up. It is laid down horizontally. That's how gravity works. Imagine if you had a bunch of layers of rock that are standing ON END and they are, themselves, covered over with OTHER LAYERS that are FLAT. You KNOW there had to be a lot of time involved in that.
It's called an ANGULAR UNCONFORMITY and they exist all over the planet:
(THIS one is even more special because the lower layers have been BENT. They had to be solidified first and then bent and then eroded down and new layers dumped on top of them.)
Imagine if you went out to the ocean today and waded out into some deeper water where things like fishes and clams etc. live. Dive down to the very bottom and see what happens to their bones and their shells when they die. Again, gravity is our friend. It pulls them all down.
What you are seeing is exactly what you'd see at the bottom of any shallow "epieric" sea today.
Now as for your "decay" comment there's a couple things wrong there: first off most fossils you see are preserved HARD PARTS (shells, bones, etc.) precisely because they can survive chemical and biological attack in the upper part of the geologic column. If they have been buried for a very long time then groundwater can replace the original inorganic minerals with other inorganic minerals as well.
On those occasions where you see preservation of "soft tissue" features they are little more than impressions of the soft tissue. Only in very rare circumstances do organic biomaterials last a significant amount of time in the fossil record. (We can talk coal and oil elsewhere).
That sort of thing is very much real and probably somewhere in the record at the Grand Canyon. What you are describing, in horizontal layers, is a DISCONFORMITY. Potentially missing strata that have been eroded away but because they are conformable on each other we don't see the "missing" layers. We would have no way to know they were missing without being able to date the layers in some other way (like by using the fossils which provides a very good means of dating rocks! It's called "Faunal Succession")
There are entire fields of study in geology dedicated to riverbeds and riverbed deposition and erosional processes.
If it were a Global Flood all over the world there are a few things that COULD NOT BE HIDDEN IN THE ROCK RECORD:
1. First off there would be a horizon in all geologic columns indicative of a period of time in which all the surface was suddenly inundated. It would leave marks. Chief among them a layer in which EVERY SINGLE LIFE FORM IS KILLED SIMULTANEOUSLY and globally.
2. A mass extinction layer would be visible. After this point there would be vast blocks of time where there is no life in the geologic record because all the life had to be re-established from Mt. Ararat or wherever.
3. Catastrophic flooding leaves very distinct types of DEPOSITIONAL FEATURES that indicate flooding. Many of these features are simply absent from the things most YEC folks point to. Remember: the more EASILY you can see those nice flat layers in the rock it means the DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENT WAS CALM ENOUGH TO CREATE NICE FLAT LAYERS.
Except that isn't what we see. We simply don't see any evidence of a global flood. And it most assuredly would leave evidence.
For example: the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs hit off the coast of Mexico and was probably about 6 miles across. Pretty small given the size of the earth in comparison (8,000 miles across). But when it hit it left a couple key markers that are found ACROSS THE GLOBE.
It left a tiny layer of Iridium-enriched rock that can be found around the globe. That all came from the impact that knocked out the dinosaurs. It also left a BIG MARK IN THE FOSSIL RECORD as vast swaths of biota were wiped out simultaneously.
You want evidence of a disaster? That's one! But evidence for a global flood: non-existence. Especially within the last several thousand years which is what it would have to be to comport with Genesis.
I am aware of those theories. They are NOT better. What I see in your skepticism is the standard suite of YEC descriptions of the science. It springs from a feeling that geology is a science approachable by everyone. But it still does require some actual technical knowledge. Spending years looking at rocks through a microscope and crawling across giant piles of rock with a hammer is worth so much more than a "just-so" story to make sense of what is clearly metaphor/myth.
Not intended as a hit on your points but your points belie no real geologic knowledge. Which is actually OK and fine! Not everyone is intended to be a geologist. But geology is far more than we often give it credit for being.
And a LOT (as in a LOT a LOT) of the reason you have gasoline in your car today is because geologists DON'T believe in the global flood anymore. They DO believe in evolution and they DO believe in "deep time". That's how the system works best and how you can wind up getting all the advantages of what we can pull out of the earth.
Into the Night
Verified User
The Theory of Evolution is not science. Religion is not science. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
Science is not an encyclopedia. Science is not a book. Science is not a grade.
The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science.
Into the Night
Verified User
Newton's laws work perfectly near the speed of light.
There is no such thing as a 'quantum scale'.
The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
A theory is not dubious. It is simply a theory.
A theory is not a question. Redefinition fallacies.
Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). You cannot prove a theory True.
Into the Night
Verified User
Word.
Oh yes, that's why you're the most civil poster on this forum.the Bible's main message is about morality.
yes it has a paragraph of setup and scant paragraph on creation, but that's not the point of any of it.
who created us or how we got here is not as important as how we treat each other.
Give me a break you hypocrite!
Tobytone
Verified User
I appreciate your comment. I rarely hear 'evolution stated as fact,' I could have been more clear, my issue is with the constant claims about the age of things without clarifying they're theories. As for scientific consensus, I don't accept it without verification, Personally, I see it as intellectual laziness. Take the 18th and 19th-century consensus that some races were inferior. It was the prevailing belief in Europe and spread to America. The assertion was backed up by the scientific method, but of course in was a corrupted use of it. That one influenced harmful policies like segregation and sterilization laws. This shows how scientific consensus can be wrong and there are many more examples.
Also, I've often noticed that evolution theory advocates often act superior, yet their arrogance is seldom earned. I expect to see a lot of that here. Should we exchange transcripts? Nobody 'knows' any 'theory' is absolutely true.
Tobytone
Verified User
Is it just the "big numbers" that cause concern? Yeah, that's a lot of time. It's amazing. It's really the wonder and awe of our planet.
Want something even WEIRDER?
You know that sediments lay down in flat layers, right? You can't make a "layer of sand" standing up. It is laid down horizontally. That's how gravity works. Imagine if you had a bunch of layers of rock that are standing ON END and they are, themselves, covered over with OTHER LAYERS that are FLAT. You KNOW there had to be a lot of time involved in that.
It's called an ANGULAR UNCONFORMITY and they exist all over the planet:
(THIS one is even more special because the lower layers have been BENT. They had to be solidified first and then bent and then eroded down and new layers dumped on top of them.)
Imagine if you went out to the ocean today and waded out into some deeper water where things like fishes and clams etc. live. Dive down to the very bottom and see what happens to their bones and their shells when they die. Again, gravity is our friend. It pulls them all down.
What you are seeing is exactly what you'd see at the bottom of any shallow "epieric" sea today.
Now as for your "decay" comment there's a couple things wrong there: first off most fossils you see are preserved HARD PARTS (shells, bones, etc.) precisely because they can survive chemical and biological attack in the upper part of the geologic column. If they have been buried for a very long time then groundwater can replace the original inorganic minerals with other inorganic minerals as well.
On those occasions where you see preservation of "soft tissue" features they are little more than impressions of the soft tissue. Only in very rare circumstances do organic biomaterials last a significant amount of time in the fossil record. (We can talk coal and oil elsewhere).
That sort of thing is very much real and probably somewhere in the record at the Grand Canyon. What you are describing, in horizontal layers, is a DISCONFORMITY. Potentially missing strata that have been eroded away but because they are conformable on each other we don't see the "missing" layers. We would have no way to know they were missing without being able to date the layers in some other way (like by using the fossils which provides a very good means of dating rocks! It's called "Faunal Succession")
There are entire fields of study in geology dedicated to riverbeds and riverbed deposition and erosional processes.
If it were a Global Flood all over the world there are a few things that COULD NOT BE HIDDEN IN THE ROCK RECORD:
1. First off there would be a horizon in all geologic columns indicative of a period of time in which all the surface was suddenly inundated. It would leave marks. Chief among them a layer in which EVERY SINGLE LIFE FORM IS KILLED SIMULTANEOUSLY and globally.
2. A mass extinction layer would be visible. After this point there would be vast blocks of time where there is no life in the geologic record because all the life had to be re-established from Mt. Ararat or wherever.
3. Catastrophic flooding leaves very distinct types of DEPOSITIONAL FEATURES that indicate flooding. Many of these features are simply absent from the things most YEC folks point to. Remember: the more EASILY you can see those nice flat layers in the rock it means the DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENT WAS CALM ENOUGH TO CREATE NICE FLAT LAYERS.
Except that isn't what we see. We simply don't see any evidence of a global flood. And it most assuredly would leave evidence.
For example: the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs hit off the coast of Mexico and was probably about 6 miles across. Pretty small given the size of the earth in comparison (8,000 miles across). But when it hit it left a couple key markers that are found ACROSS THE GLOBE.
It left a tiny layer of Iridium-enriched rock that can be found around the globe. That all came from the impact that knocked out the dinosaurs. It also left a BIG MARK IN THE FOSSIL RECORD as vast swaths of biota were wiped out simultaneously.
You want evidence of a disaster? That's one! But evidence for a global flood: non-existence. Especially within the last several thousand years which is what it would have to be to comport with Genesis.
I am aware of those theories. They are NOT better. What I see in your skepticism is the standard suite of YEC descriptions of the science. It springs from a feeling that geology is a science approachable by everyone. But it still does require some actual technical knowledge. Spending years looking at rocks through a microscope and crawling across giant piles of rock with a hammer is worth so much more than a "just-so" story to make sense of what is clearly metaphor/myth.
Not intended as a hit on your points but your points belie no real geologic knowledge. Which is actually OK and fine! Not everyone is intended to be a geologist. But geology is far more than we often give it credit for being.
And a LOT (as in a LOT a LOT) of the reason you have gasoline in your car today is because geologists DON'T believe in the global flood anymore. They DO believe in evolution and they DO believe in "deep time". That's how the system works best and how you can wind up getting all the advantages of what we can pull out of the earth.
Again, I appreciate the time and effort you've put into your comments. I will admit your arrogance did shine through a bit. LOL It seems like you're very quick to assume you know what I've done with my life and how much I know about your field based on some of the things I've pointed out.
In spite of your belief that because you've run around with a hammer and a bucket, you hold all the answers—as if you're the only one who has done so and not a single geologist matching your intellect sees things differently—I find it cute that you bring up "The Global Iridium Anomaly." However, as you "may" know, it doesn't reach the Grand Canyon. Maybe you disagreed with my effort to keep focused on one issue or place at a time.
Also, you seem unaware that the type of catastrophic events it would take to cause a global flood not only could have but likely included an asteroid strike or two. That leaves one (granted, not one as smart as you) to question some or all of the dating methods. They are often at the root of the arrogance of those adverse to critical thinking.
Anyways, there's a lot here, so I'll hit you back again as soon as I'm able. Regardless of the backhanded insults you felt necessary to sling, I do value your input as it seems to come from considerable experience. I'd appreciate your input and have no problem with you having confidence in your conclusions, but I'd rather you respect anyone's view on the subject, regardless of your perception of their intelligence. It's just not helpful, but maybe it's a necessity for you. No worries if you can't resist, it's often the norm. See how it made me return fire adding nothing to the conversation. I'm as weak as anyone, unable to resist swinging back. It's like a snowball from here. Can we skip that maybe.
Attachments
Tobytone
Verified User
Thanks for your thoughts and for keeping the conversation insult-free. (Maybe with a hint of subtle, backhanded insult, but that's all in good fun i suppose.) I agree with the essence of your statements, with one caveat: if you're implying that I've said all 'established theories are dubious' or that I'm a 'holy roller,' I'll correct you—I didn't say that, and I'm not one. If you're alluding to the example I used to demonstrate that consensus doesn't necessarily mean correctness, I could provide more examples of incorrect consensus without resorting to dubious acts if you think it's necessary.
I will point out that the dubious act was not repeated by all scientists or intellectuals of the day who assumed its validity and incorporated the findings into further papers and proposals. The point being, in my opinion all consensus should be aggressively questioned.
Tobytone
Verified User
Is it just the "big numbers" that cause concern? Yeah, that's a lot of time. It's amazing. It's really the wonder and awe of our planet.
Want something even WEIRDER?
You know that sediments lay down in flat layers, right? You can't make a "layer of sand" standing up. It is laid down horizontally. That's how gravity works. Imagine if you had a bunch of layers of rock that are standing ON END and they are, themselves, covered over with OTHER LAYERS that are FLAT. You KNOW there had to be a lot of time involved in that.
It's called an ANGULAR UNCONFORMITY and they exist all over the planet:
(THIS one is even more special because the lower layers have been BENT. They had to be solidified first and then bent and then eroded down and new layers dumped on top of them.)
Imagine if you went out to the ocean today and waded out into some deeper water where things like fishes and clams etc. live. Dive down to the very bottom and see what happens to their bones and their shells when they die. Again, gravity is our friend. It pulls them all down.
What you are seeing is exactly what you'd see at the bottom of any shallow "epieric" sea today.
Now as for your "decay" comment there's a couple things wrong there: first off most fossils you see are preserved HARD PARTS (shells, bones, etc.) precisely because they can survive chemical and biological attack in the upper part of the geologic column. If they have been buried for a very long time then groundwater can replace the original inorganic minerals with other inorganic minerals as well.
On those occasions where you see preservation of "soft tissue" features they are little more than impressions of the soft tissue. Only in very rare circumstances do organic biomaterials last a significant amount of time in the fossil record. (We can talk coal and oil elsewhere).
That sort of thing is very much real and probably somewhere in the record at the Grand Canyon. What you are describing, in horizontal layers, is a DISCONFORMITY. Potentially missing strata that have been eroded away but because they are conformable on each other we don't see the "missing" layers. We would have no way to know they were missing without being able to date the layers in some other way (like by using the fossils which provides a very good means of dating rocks! It's called "Faunal Succession")
There are entire fields of study in geology dedicated to riverbeds and riverbed deposition and erosional processes.
If it were a Global Flood all over the world there are a few things that COULD NOT BE HIDDEN IN THE ROCK RECORD:
1. First off there would be a horizon in all geologic columns indicative of a period of time in which all the surface was suddenly inundated. It would leave marks. Chief among them a layer in which EVERY SINGLE LIFE FORM IS KILLED SIMULTANEOUSLY and globally.
2. A mass extinction layer would be visible. After this point there would be vast blocks of time where there is no life in the geologic record because all the life had to be re-established from Mt. Ararat or wherever.
3. Catastrophic flooding leaves very distinct types of DEPOSITIONAL FEATURES that indicate flooding. Many of these features are simply absent from the things most YEC folks point to. Remember: the more EASILY you can see those nice flat layers in the rock it means the DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENT WAS CALM ENOUGH TO CREATE NICE FLAT LAYERS.
Except that isn't what we see. We simply don't see any evidence of a global flood. And it most assuredly would leave evidence.
For example: the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs hit off the coast of Mexico and was probably about 6 miles across. Pretty small given the size of the earth in comparison (8,000 miles across). But when it hit it left a couple key markers that are found ACROSS THE GLOBE.
It left a tiny layer of Iridium-enriched rock that can be found around the globe. That all came from the impact that knocked out the dinosaurs. It also left a BIG MARK IN THE FOSSIL RECORD as vast swaths of biota were wiped out simultaneously.
You want evidence of a disaster? That's one! But evidence for a global flood: non-existence. Especially within the last several thousand years which is what it would have to be to comport with Genesis.
I am aware of those theories. They are NOT better. What I see in your skepticism is the standard suite of YEC descriptions of the science. It springs from a feeling that geology is a science approachable by everyone. But it still does require some actual technical knowledge. Spending years looking at rocks through a microscope and crawling across giant piles of rock with a hammer is worth so much more than a "just-so" story to make sense of what is clearly metaphor/myth.
Not intended as a hit on your points but your points belie no real geologic knowledge. Which is actually OK and fine! Not everyone is intended to be a geologist. But geology is far more than we often give it credit for being.
And a LOT (as in a LOT a LOT) of the reason you have gasoline in your car today is because geologists DON'T believe in the global flood anymore. They DO believe in evolution and they DO believe in "deep time". That's how the system works best and how you can wind up getting all the advantages of what we can pull out of the earth.
The examples of angular unconformities in the Grand Canyon that I'm aware of are located near the bottom of the canyon, where they sit atop the much older base layer. People seem to forget that the Earth had its own geological features long before the global flood theory could apply. Moreover, your example of an angular unconformity features a familiar flat layer of sedimentary rock on top of the older, tilted rocks, which is consistent with formations that could result from a localized flood or a much larger flood event. I'm curious where that photo was taken. Do you know?
Regarding fossilization, scientists estimate that the Grand Canyon's sedimentary layers accumulated at a rate of about 0.1 mm/year to a maximum of 5cm/year. If this rate were consistent over millions of years, shouldn't we expect to find nearly every variation of every creature that evolved through mutations during that time? The vast number of fossils in the canyon suggests there must have been very favorable conditions for fossilization. So, how do you account for the preservation of such detailed creatures when most have no signs of decay before fossilization. What possibly created such favorable conditions in a slow burial scenario. And how do you explain the absence of a complete catalog of transitional forms, or 'missing links', documenting the evolutionary process? Again, what I see suggests a rapid burial scenario far more than a slow burial scenario over 1.8 billion years? I'll be back to discuss some of the other points you've made.
Scut Farkus
Best
you're a neocon globalist traitor to humanity.Oh yes, that's why you're the most civil poster on this forum.
Give me a break you hypocrite!
Jesus disapproves.
you are immoral.
Scut Farkus
Best
what do you think the bibles main message is?Oh yes, that's why you're the most civil poster on this forum.
Give me a break you hypocrite!
Zionism?
probably.
fucking brainwashed noahide killbot imbeciles.
Evolutionary biology has been an active area of research and has been interrogated for a century and a half.
We've learned Darwin was wrong about some things, but the basic idea of descent with modification by natural selection has repeatedly stood the test of time and is supported by multiple lines of evidence.
Last edited:
Daylight63
Verified User
No it's not. The rocks had to have been solidified first and then bent (if you want to test this hypothesis go outside and make a flat "pancake" of sand and see if you can fold it like in the picture. It won't work.
I can't stress this enough: flooding deposits would be very different from calm-water deposits. We CAN TELL a LOT about the conditions of deposition and a geologist would easily be able to tell if this is a giant flood formation vs what it actually is.
Fossilization is not guaranteed for all dead animals. But to your point: yes we DO find almost every variation of creatures if we look in the fossil record. We see them CHANGE OVER TIME. We can actually date rocks based on what form various shells have taken. This is the power of evolution in geology.
I am pretty sure I already described fossilization in some degree of detail in the post above. I'll let you re-read that bit.
Then why don't we see a rapid depopulation (as in EVERY LIFE FORM ON EARTH except for what fit on the Ark). Every animal alive at that time across the globe would be dead. That would leave a layer of MASSIVE DIE OFF the earth over.
We DO HAVE EVIDENCE OF SIMILAR EVENTS: KT boundary (dinosaurs wiped out), End Permian Extinction, etc.
So it is incumbent upon you to explain why we don't see:
1. MASSIVE layer of all animals killed (even fishes presumably but it is unclear how) SIMULTANEOUSLY and INSTANTANEOUSLY in the rock record ACROSS THE GLOBE within the time of recorded history (in order for the flood of which you speak to be the one we are talking about)
2. Years of deposition across the globe with literaly NO LIFE ANYWHERE IN THEM. None. As living creatures re-populated the earth away from Mt Ararat.
Right now there's ZERO evidence of a global flood like described in Genesis. Just none. There isn't even a HINT of evidence for it. IF such evidence existed it would be OBVIOUS.
Another thing to remember about the debate you are undertaking: GEOLOGISTS ABANDONED THE GLOBAL FLOOD HYPOTHESIS OVER A CENTURY AGO.
The only "geologists" who currently advocate for the Flood are limited to YEC Literalist Creationists with a clear and obvious biblical bias.