What would a global flood look like approximately 4000 years later. That is one that completely covering the globe at least a mile high, with major volcanic activity and large chunks being blown into the upper atmosphere and some into outer space. Hmm?
That's easy. Just examine areas that are known to have flooded in historic times and extrapolate. Erosional evidence and silt deposits would be some of the major things to look for.
Radiometric dating is an assumptive science, first off "you" assume that the universe is old, second you assume that decay rates are constant and do not have any thing that effects them. If you say contrary you are lying to yourself and the public.
There is a significant difference between pointing out that radiometric dating is based on assumptions and you showing that those assumptions are wrong! If those assumptions are accurate and supported by other lines of evidence, then there is nothing wrong with using them!
While you are not interested in radiometric dating and related sciences except to make unsupported denials of their accuracy to support your religious belief in a young earth, here are some good links for any lurkers who want more information:
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth CreationistsRadiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
Tree Ring and C14 DatingHow does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.