The biblical dating of events has been compared with the archaeological finds, and "they match to within the accepted margin of error for the archaeological data. Only the early part of the Bible's calendar, which relates to events of the six days that precede Adam, appears to be in contradiction with the results of modern scientific inquiry" (Schroeder 30). Because of this everyone first assumes that the Bible is wrong, but discoveries now point to the possibility that scientific inquiry could be wrong.
One theory that creation scientists claim supports the biblical creation is the theory of new catastrophism. George McCready Price introduced this theory in 1902. Price believed that evolution was based on geology; therefore, Price set out to prove geological assumptions wrong in order to reveal the inaccuracies in evolution (Sonder 39-40). Price's theory of new catastrophism stated that "most changes on Earth had been caused by only one catastrophe- Noah's Great Flood- rather than by the multiple catastrophes theorized by nineteenth-century geologists" (Sonder 42).
Price believed that the Great Flood could have "been caused by a sudden shift of the Earth's axis that had spewed up massive amounts of underground water" (Sonder 40). One problem in explaining the flood is trying to explain how plant life survived. A researcher named George Howe explained this in an experiment. He "soaked the seeds if fruit plants of five different species in sea water, tap water, or an equal mixture of both for a maximum of 140 days, which is roughly the time period given in the Bible for the flood. He determined that some seeds could survive this maximum soaking period and that other seeds might have been protected inside the carcasses of birds that had eaten them" (Sonder 58). Another researcher named Clifford Burdick tried to prove the flood by finding the ark on Mount Ararat. He never found the ark, but he found limestone deposits that matched perfectly with the time of the flood (Sonder 58).