[Coyoteman]

Does this include the global flood too?

Yes.

Here are some points which you might consider from my profession, archaeology (western US):

• We are dealing with soils, not geological strata. It takes a lot longer to create geological strata than the last 10,000 years affords. That means we are dealing with archaeology, not geology; soils, not rocks. This is an important point!

• The last 10,000 years are quite well known. We have multiple methods of investigation and dating, including sedimentology, radiocarbon (my favorite), tree-rings, glacial varves, stylistic seriation, paleomagnetism, etc. There is no evidence for complete disruption as would be required by a global flood at 2300 BC (the commonly agreed-upon date for the flood).

• Native American cultures are continuous before and after 6,000 years ago. There is no sudden creation at 6,000 years ago, nor any break at 2300 BC for a global flood. mtDNA patterns allow tracking back to the Out-of-Africa event some 70,000 or so years ago.

• In the western US, there is a cave in southern Alaska dated to 10,000 years, with subsequent mtDNA succession throughout half the hemisphere and coming all the way down to modern times. No evidence of a break and replacement with eastern Mediterranean or Middle Eastern mtDNA at 2300 BC. Rather, mtDNA patterns in the New World link to only five haplogroups, all of which seem to have formed way before 2300 BC and to be distinctly different from those in the eastern Mediterranean.

• Another site has a second founding Native American genetic type dated at 5250 BP; living descendants in the western US have the exact same type. There is no break at the purported time of the global flood.

This evidence is from one narrow field of study-- archaeology, and one small area--the western US. There is a lot more evidence from archaeology in other areas, and there are a lot more fields of study.

They all fail to support a global flood at 2300 BC.

[celmak]

I understand your dilemma, especially the understanding of the age of the earth. Before I go into depth about your findings, 2 questions:

How many times, say, just in the past 100 years, has the age of the earth changed? How many times has the age of the planet, during this 100 years, grown and shrunk?

I'll be back tomorrow, I do have a life beyond Freeping.

[Elsie]

I envy your work! (I know; shouldn't do that - kinda like coveting)

As a mid-westerner (why isn't it mid-easterner?), I'd trade steamy Indiana summers for dry Utah ones, but my better half wouldn't be a happy camper.

Oh well, I can take trips often enough....

[celmak]

Let's deal with your first point:

We are dealing with soils, not geological strata. It takes a lot longer to create geological strata than the last 10,000 years affords. That means we are dealing with archaeolog (sic), not geology; soils, not rocks. This is an important point!

My interest lie with biology, not "archaeology (your word, not mine)", but I'll give it a go. Why is this an important point?