The TRVE history of the Flood...

Just don't count on career in science!

Yes, you do make such claims yet the fact is just one dating sample is all that is needed to totally refute Young Earth.Just one society that existed before, during and after the flood (called almost all of the stone and bronze age) refutes the Biblical flood.Just one city that existed before during and after the flood refutes the Biblical flood.Just one sample of a living organism that lived before during and after the flood totally refutes the Bible story.Sorry but regardless of whatever evidence you think you have, the Biblical Flood never happened.Period!That's a fact Jack!

Which is practically the definition of hand-waving.

Never never never will anyone address the actual evidence I've given.

Never, never, never will you give us the courtesy of reading our posts. If you did, you would see the discussion of your points. Instead, you deny and reject out of hand.

Like, what did I say in the subtitle???Oh, yeah... Adminnemooseus

You can't do that Faith. Well not if you want to appear rational - it's a critical thinking problem.If you see a dead body on the ground beneath a tall building and you recognise him as a chap with mental health problem it might be reasonable to suspect suicide. But if you subsequently find he has a bullet hole in his head you don't just stick to your original theory because you think it's 'better evidence'. You must examine all the alternative scenarios, if you don't you run the risk of forming the wrong conclusion.Dating and sorting evidence are two pieces of fatal evidence to a young earth hypothesis, they can't simply be ignored because you feel you have better evidence of something else, it's necessary for you to show why they're wrong. If you can't, at the very best you can tell yourself that you have an open verdict.You should also ask yourself why only people with a belief system like yours hold the YEC belief. Why can't you find an agnostic YEC scientist? The answer is because belief in a young earth derives from faith not science. It can't stand on its own evidence.

Tell me Faith, which is "better evidence"All the evidence of time passing between the deposition of (some) strata, or your assertion that that evidence does not exist ?

The point is that there is no way to tell if the past was the same as the present, but a cross section can show that the strata were all laid down before tectonic disturbance occurred.

And at other locations you can show that the strata was laid down after tectonic disturbances occurred. Evidence you have denied rather than disproven.The point is that there is no way to tell if the past was measurably different from the present. The point is that tree rings and lake varves and ice layers all point to the past being very similar to the present, with no disruptions.The consilience between different types of data pointing to the same conclusions shows high confidence that the past was the same as the present.The data from radiometric dating matching the dating from layer counting shows high confidence that the past was the same as the present.There is NO evidence that it was different.Only a fool thinks they have proven a falsehood, especially one invalidated by mountains of evidence.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

The working hypothesis is that in the past the basic physical laws were the same as today; trees grew at the same annual rate, corals grew at the same rate, tides came in and out twice per day, winter came once per year and radioactive decay was the same as the present.You have absolutely no evidence indicating any different do you? And science has stacks of evidence saying that the period covered by your flood - which is very recent - is no different than today. Mountains of it, and it all coincides - it's this co-incidence that kills you, you can't escape it. You must address it, if you can't or won't your case is lost.

But of course that is demonstrably not true Faith as you have been shown repeatedly. Change leaves evidence. Thinking people can not just tell if the past was like the present, they can even tell how the past differed at most any time from the present.It is only those who are willfully ignorant who cannot tell if the past was the same as the present, or the deluded, or the dishonest.Simple things like leaf shape can tell what the average temperatures were. Width of tree rings can tell what average rainfall was in a given year. We have actually sample the very air from millions of years ago.Your assertion, no matter how many times you repeat it, is simply false and has been refuted for hundreds of years.Only those people deluded into a perversion of the Bible are unable to understand that the Biblical flood stories in the Bible are simply fiction, folk tales, fantasy.

Have you ever tried to match ice cores to your consilience data?There's quite a good article here - by a theologian of all people.http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdfFaith - just the modern ice core data is enough to sink your boat with all hands and hooves.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

The "working hypothesis" is known as Uniformitarianism and since we know things were very very different before the Flood, immensely more favorable to growing things, we ain't buying it.I don't have to address any of that, all I have to do is post cross sections that according to the standard model show something like 500 million years of continuous sedimentary deposition without any disturbances whatever, to prove the absolute absurdity of the Time Scale. it ought to make a sane person fall down laughing.And angular unconformities are the ONLY supposed evidence for deposition following tectonic disturbance and they are usually pretty pathetic looking broken horizontal pieces perched on top of some buckled strata. Which indicates that whatever caused the tectonic disturbance knocked off all the strata above the pathetic piece.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, it isn't. We do not know that. Your allegedly infallible interpretation of the Bible is the only evidence for that, and as pointed out above real-world evidence shows that to be untrue.Water was water.Gravity was gravity.Water didn't sort fossils in the observed order.