The TRVE history of the Flood...

I've seen RAZD's correlations. I've also commented on them IIRC. I've acknowledged that they are good arguments that are hard to answer although there are many possible ways they may be refuted. It's a matter of the preponderance of evidence in the end since we have no witness in the distant past to such things as the speed of varve formation or tree ring growth, and are stuck with making extrapolations from current conditions.But in this little side discussion I'm emphasizing that the Bible is regarded by biblical creationists as God's word which means everything else is judged by it. Meanwhile there is a lot of evidence FOR the Flood and against the ToE/OE that creationists focus on in most discussions.Again, nothing would ever convince you, there's just something about the grip the ToE/OE fantasy has on people's minds in these untestable unprovable historical sciences, that prevents the truth from getting through. Yes I do believe this. So the debate is always about creationists trying to find the most convincing evidence, and the other side always coming up with outlandish objections to it. I will give you personally credit for sticking to the argument itself pretty well though.

quote:

---

I've seen RAZD's correlations. I've also commented on them IIRC. I've acknowledged that they are good arguments that are hard to answer although there are many possible ways they may be refuted

---

Thank you for finally admitting that we have a strong case. Although be honest - there aren't "many possible" refutations - and in fact there are no plausible refutations.

quote:

---

. It's a matter of the preponderance of evidence in the end since we have no witness in the distant past to such things as the speed of varve formation or tree ring growth, and are stuck with making extrapolations from current conditions.

---

Strange you would say that when the correlations are themselves evidence that conditions in the past were the same - at least to the extent needed for the various dating methods to work. And that is just one reason why the preponderance of evidence is heavily in our favour.

quote:

---

But in this little side discussion I'm emphasizing that the Bible is regarded by biblical creationists as God's word which means everything else is judged by it.

---

Which is only an admission of bias on your part.

quote:

---

Meanwhile there is a lot of evidence FOR the Flood and against the ToE/OE that creationists focus on in most discussions.

---

And much of it is rubbish (how can the fact that we have sedimentary sequences that we would expect to be produced by slow changes in sea level - over many, many years - evidence for the Flood ?)

quote:

---

Again, nothing would ever convince you, there's just something about the grip the ToE/OE fantasy has on people's minds in these untestable unprovable historical sciences, that prevents the truth from getting through. Yes I do believe this

---

And yet it is the bias in your minds that stops you from seeing - or admitting to the obvious flaws in your arguments - and it is those flaws that are a major reason why you fail to convince us. You could convince us - some of us at least - if you had good arguments, but all too often they are appallingly bad. And need I point out the problems of boasting about your "good judgement" when you have demonstrated appallingly bad judgement.

quote:

---

So the debate is always about creationists trying to find the most convincing evidence, and the other side always coming up with outlandish objections to it

---

I think you would have to look very hard for a case where that was true.More often creationists are caught in misrepresentation, falsehood, making unverifiable assertions - and false accusations. Hardly "convincing evidence" for creationism.

I

I've put up a ton of good arguments in spite of occasional errors and all the rest of it. You'll never acknowledge that, I have to content myself with knowing it's true without your acknowledgment. In my opinion the Flood has been proved many times over by now, so all that's left is this endless exchange of your negative opinion versus the creationist opinion.

The dating methods have been "proved" to those who matter.But "proving" those methods to creationists is impossible because creationists will not accept any evidence that disagrees with their religious beliefs.Your request is a sham.

Which was exactly my point about believers in the ToE/OE. All the good arguments creationists come up with won't be accepted just because of bias. Don't exactly recall making a "request," but what I said was more tongue in cheek than you seem to appreciate.

I suggest you proceed about continental drift and not be concerned about how many years after the flood it took place.

quote:

---

I've put up a ton of good arguments in spite of occasional errors and all the rest of it. You'll never acknowledge that,

---

I would never tell such a ridiculous lie.

quote:

---

In my opinion the Flood has been proved many times over by now, so all that's left is this endless exchange of your negative opinion versus the creationist opinion.

---

Except that we still have the evidence and you don't.

I shall start this other topic HERE, even though it happened 130 years after the Flood, as evolutionists deal with the guesswork of millions and billions of years of slow tetonic changes rather than the catstrophic ones seen by Darwin and Viekosky, etc etc etc etc, and another etc.First of all, the flood came from the depths of the Earth and covered all mountains included Aararat, and then rushed downwards created the flood plains etc, the Grand Canyon etc etc..... all observed phenonemun not of slow inch by inch, billion years by billion years, but catastrophic events. Again observed by Darwin and Viekosky (Spelling etc.........)So atheists and evolutionists please FIRST tell us about your inch by inch tetonic plates, and then from your incorrect observations, please do calculate falsely the number of years the continents have been inch by inch separating.Begin now.Remember you evolutionists are suppose to be able to debate and prove your theory upon theory, or at least answer questions, besides saying I dont know, evolution doesnt tell us anything about geology, we make it up as we go semantics.Begin NOw !

You're not even amusing any longer.

And vice versa: If the Bible disagrees with what we observe in the real world, then the Bible isn't true.

Can you give some examples of talking snakes in history?

Please from this point on discuss the history of the flood, i.e., what happened during the flood and when, and how we know. The Bible can be used as a starting point, but corroborating real world evidence must also be supplied.

Of course, that's why this is just an endless repetitive argument. That's why I was suggesting putting aside these assumptions on both sides because it's a big waste of time to keep going back and forth like this. But I have given up on that noble cause.

How can you set aside real-world-observations in a science forum? We're not arguing opinions here. We're arguing facts.