The TRVE history of the Flood...

None of that is "proof" of the date, it is calculating the number you need to prove. And as PaulK pointed out, you also need to establish that your particular data set is the correct one. Creationists propose a great range of dates for the creation and the flood, ranging up to 10,000 years. How is your calculation the right one.Ok, so you have established the date that you wish to prove to be the right one, now show that it is right using scientific methodology.HBD

Some confusion here, so why don't you show your maths.I figure there is 52 weeks in a year times 1656 years equals 1656 x 52 = 86,112 not 86,400.Also elsewhere you claim the correct number of years from creation to the flood is 1646 years, so this would be 85,592 weeks, not 86,400.In order for the number of weeks to be 86,400, the number of years from creation to flood would need to be 1661.53846, not even a whole number, which you point out that Noah left the ark on the first day of the first month exactly, by which I assume you mean that the time of creation to Noah leaving the ark was a exact number of years, not fractional.So please... However, you do realize that adding and multiplying numbers alone is not science, don't you?HBD

It's not really a Bible study topic either... I think we should have a new forum category for all these odd discussions that don't really fit into any existing category well. Maybe call it "non compos mentis" sort of a free-for-all of crazyHBD

Ahhh... good times, Faith... good times. But, I probably wouldn't get into another discussion about supersonic plate motion again if you want to rehash it all with someone else. Cheers.HBD

Sure. He is now moderating this thread (and others as well) to try and keep the confusion and goobly-gook nonsense of legitimate discussion from ruining his sermons.HBD

Two YECs can't even agree on the specific details presented in the Biblical narrative.The other major problems are:1) YECs spend all their time trying to disprove evolution and old ages rather than developing a coherent, consistent model2) YECs are unwilling to examine the finer details and follow the evidence where it leads. Instead, they look for evidence that they think fits their particular narrative.3) They postulate scenarios to explain one portion of the narrative at a time. However, those scenarios are often at odds with other parts of the narrative or create virtually impossible physical situations.So to be sure, historical sciences are not exact sciences and no one expects to have an exact re-creation of past events. YECs, however, are not trying to discover and understand past events they are merely trying to justify their belief in specific past events.ABE: A specific example of problem #3.Problem: There were trees with leaves shortly after the ark lands
Solution: Some trees survived the flood intact and only needed to begin growing again to produce leaves
Conflict (that was postulated to solve another problem): ALL the sedimentary layers were deposited by the waters of the flood to an average of 1 mile thick
Contradiction: How could an individual tree, or any plant or fish for that matter, survive an erosional / depositional period that would be required to produce 1 mile thick sedimentary deposits?
YEC response: So what? I don't see the problem./ABEHBDEdited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

To be fair, scientists disagree A LOT. Right? There can be some pretty heated debates around certain topics and each side can be emotionally invested in a particular interpretation. But eventually, when enough evidence is examined, the consensus goes one direction or the other.YECs hold on to their particular interpretation tenaciously, and will continually trot out old arguments that have been disproven time and time again.HBD