Summations Only

As it turns out, I am quite happy with someone believing that. If someone says that they believe that the Biblical flood happened because it says so in a bible they believe is inerrant, and that the science and all the scientists must be wrong, and then leave it there, then fair enough from my perspective. I don't share your belief - I think it's self-delusion, but hey, your beliefs are yours.As I've said before, where I get het up is where the person with that belief then tries to argue in detail to refute and (the holy grail) to disprove the evidenced science. (Or worst of all, tries to get their belief taught as "science" to children).However, what's just occurred to me is this: why is it so important to you, Faith, to try to refute and disprove the science ? Is your faith such that you need the science to be disproved ? If you believe that God trumps it all, why the need to refute or disprove the science ?

What are they then please Faith ?

Tangle has already asked my follow-on question, and you haven't addressed it (which I can understand, because the gaping hole is obvious, even without a lot of expertise in the field), so let me ask it again:If terrestrial plants were carried along with the sediment in the flood waters, why are there no marine fossils mixed in with the terrestrial plants ?

Kind of reminds me of that episode of Red Dwarf, where they played pool with planets. Quite an apt simile for the sort of supernatural, deus ex machina shenanigans that would be needed. :-)