The TRVE history of the Flood...

You said "They can be stated as a conclusion from an argument but too often they are just stated over and over and over and over and over in the place of an argument."I wanted to see if you could in fact derive your beliefs as the conclusion of an argument. Shall I take that as a no?So what you're left with, apparently, is "the Bible is right because the Bible is right". And now you wish to be excused from asserting your premise ...Well since your premise is also your conclusion, that would leave you with nothing to say at all.

For the assertions in the Bible.

OK, "for the assertions in the Bible about the Flood". If you want to be picky about it.

It's not an assumption, don't be dishonest. It's a conclusion from the data. I know your religion requires you to think that it's a false conclusion, but to pretend that it's an assumption is false and you know it.And how would this disprove radiometric dating? That's just bizarre. That's bizarre even for creationists.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You mean if the whole sedimentary record was deposited simultaneously? True, but it obviously wasn't.

It is quite obvious. Look at all the angular unconformities. You show me a mechanism that lays down all those strata at the same time, then you can talk.

The fact that people ignore your delusions doesn't actually confirm them. Obviously you're talking shit, obviously we all know it, and obviously people are beginning to think that you're too obdurately stupid to be worth talking to.If you want a response to each of your posts, let me help you with that. Print this out. Hang it over your desk, and every time you dribble out some of your fatuous nonsense, look up and read it.

When I lose a debate I concede gracefully; but we are evidently two very different people.

Well, see if you can answer the one about the Great Creationist Fossil Failure.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I picked number 5 and gave you a link to a thread where it is discussed.

You're lying to us about what we think.Whom do you hope to deceive?

Archaeological and historical evidence has consistently confirmed that the bit of the Bible we're discussing in this particular thread is false. If we ever have a thread on "Does Jerusalem exist?" or "Was Augustus Caesar a real person?" then you can talk about how the evidence corroborates the Bible.

What insane lies you tell. Whom do you hope to deceive?

Apart from the YECs who denounce speciation as an evil-utionist lie. It really is necessary to ask each separate YEC what they think and find out what tradition they belong to.Your post is like we asked if you believed in transubstantiation and you answered "This is what Christians believe, don't you know anything about Christianity?" To which we would reply: "Apparently we know more about it than you, because we know that it is divided into sects with conflicting views, and you do not." So, was the person who wrote this lying, ignorant, or insane?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And yet the sediment is volcanic rather than lacustrine or marine. Full text of "Petrified Forests of Yellowstone"That kind of spoils your ridiculous ad hoc hypothesis.