[Ichneumon]

Not a Myth: http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark.htm

Unfortunately, that account violates a huge amount of the real-world evidence, and thus has been falsified.

Problems with a Global Flood

"Polystrate" Fossils

Review of John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study"

Dinosaur Prints in Coal

The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood

Is the Devonian Chattanooga Shale Really a Volcanic Ash-Fall Deposit?

Geology in Error?: The Lewis Thrust

Thrust Faults and the Lewis Overthrust

What Would We Expect to Find if the World had Flooded?

Problems with Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory

Burrows in the Orkney Islands contradict the Global Flood

Why The Flood Can't Be Global

The Fish is Served With a Delicate Creamy Mercury Sauce

The Letter The Creation Research Society Quarterly Didn't Want You to See

Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood

Why Would the Flood Sort Animals by Cell Type?

Fleeing from the Flood

Isotopic Sorting and the Noah's Flood Model

Evidence from the Orkney Islands Against a Global Flood

While the Flood Rages, Termites Dig, Dinosaurs Dance and Cicadas Sing

More Nonsense on "TRUE.ORIGINS": Jonathan Sarfati's Support Of Flood Geology

Why Geology Shows Sedimentation to Be too Slow for a Global Flood

Creationist "Flood Geology" Versus Common Sense -- Or Reasons why "Flood Geology" was abandoned in the mid-1800s by Christian men of science

If you ever managed to resolve all of those apparently insurmountable problems for the creationist version of a flood scenario, feel free to come back and present us with the results of your research. Make sure that your thesis is consistent with the totality of the evidence, however, and not just one tiny corner of it in isolation while violating most of the rest (a common creationist tactic).

[Zavien Doombringer]

no it doesn't, that the evidence of God's Global Flood invalidates any of mankinds means of rationalizing it away.

[ahayes]

Ping to self for later reading.

[Coyoteman]

All of those links pointing out problems with the flood are nice, but I have data some from my own work as well--and I have never seen a refutation that amounted to much on any of the standard creation pages (or here on FR).

Why are people dealing with geology, rocks, and fossils? The flood is commonly accepted to be about 4350 years old. You should be dealing with soils!

You need to talk to the archaeologists, not the geologists!

We have a good continuous record in the western US of human habitation (including mtDNA, archaeology, settlement and subsistence strategies, etc.), faunal and floral succession (pollen records, tree rings from bristlecone pines, etc.), sedimentology, and a lot more. And this is in the soils.

There is simply no room for a global flood, with total population and faunal/floral replacement, and immense erosional forces acting on the soils. The evidence is simply not there.