Looking over the results of other threads, it seems that the defining point of the argument for both sides is the age of the earth. Sort of a global flood verses millions of years sediment buildup.
If the Earth is proven to be millions of years old, and the sediment has built up over time, then the fossils found would seem to imply that evolution happened, as they seem to be structured in an order of complexity, development over time, etc.
If the Earth is only thousands of years old, then fossil evidence is irrelevant because the flood was the sole creator of most of the fossils, and they were deposited in their consecutive layers due to how long they would float for/how easily they mixed with the liquidfied layers of the ground during the flood.
Without fossil evidence, and without proof that the earth has had millions of years of existance, evolution cannot be proven. If the earth is in fact millions of years old, and the fossil record is indeed correct, then creationism as it currently stands would be invalidated as well.
SO: Is there a single piece of evidence that comprehensively proves that a global flood happened / did not happen? Is there a lay-man, easy to identify, unrefutable piece of evidence that can be used to show the age of the earth?
I always thought that underground salt deposits were a great proof of a old age earth. Salt was the leftover from an evaporated sea, which was then covered with subsequent layers of sediments, etc.
Case in point: the Michigan Basin Salt mines. See http://www.saltinstitute.org/mich-1.html for some fairly straightforward pictures about how the michigan salt mines were supposedly formed, and how many layers of sediments are layered on top of it. Note the size, shapes and locations. (And http://www.beg.utexas.edu/indassoc/agl/agl_if.html for some nifty animations of salt in general)
It is interesting to note that there are 6 different layers of salt in the area, meaning at 6 different times through history there inland seas at this location, each of which subsequently evaporated.
The creationist answer to salt deposits, at least by Walt Brown ( http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... view7.html ) also involves evaporation, however, only part of the sea is evaporated and the salt is precipatated due to the water becoming superstaurated. This "thick pasty" precipetate is then buried under heavier sediments(!) during the flood.
I don't see how this could lead to multiple layers of salt forming, nor why the salt precipatate would even form a layer, much less 6 differernt ones in this particular area alone, whilst the majority of other areas have no salt deposits at all. A global flood I would have thought using this model would no doubt have had a fairly even distribution of salt deposits.
The locations of salt deposits are a telling factor that it was not laid down in a global flood - as (from the first link) clearly shows:
Actually, looking back at that, im not sure if its lay-man enough. Any other simple irrefutable examples for/against?
I didn't hear myself say anything about Usher (I didn't see myself write anything about him either). I really must learn to pay more attention! I thought I was just responding to juliod/DanZ's question. 
