The TRVE history of the Flood...

I dare to say that you trust only science that agrees with the bible and reject science that contradicts the bible.As far as "no practical use," that's not for creationists to judge. They are inherently anti-science and their opinions on matters scientific are generally worthless.

You object for religious reasons, but have no evidence to show that those fields of science are incorrect. You are operating on faith, while rejecting evidence.That is the exact opposite of science!

Which mountains of evidence show never happened, let alone at the "exact" date you specify.Your belief and your numbers mean nothing against the real-world evidence disproving the flood.

Get a grip!Rather than "evolutionists" you should be talking about paleontologists, biologists, zoologists, geologists, geneticists, and a host of other scientific specialties.These fields all require specialized training, many of them involving mathematics or statistics.It is only creationists who lump all the fields they don't like together as "evolutionists."What a joke!

Horseshit.

The math may be "proven" (though others here disagree) but the flood has been disproved. Conclusively!All the math you can manufacture won't change that in the least.

Nice work if you can get it. But no.You are totally ignoring my point and the points made by others.It doesn't matter what your math says, the real-world evidence shows conclusively that there was no global flood at that "exact" time or any others while humans were around.You're just wasting your time (and ours) by, figuratively, trying to prove the bumblebee can't fly, while we can all see them flying.And also, you're not debating--you're preaching. You should end each post with, "Amen!"

No, you are neither teaching nor debating, you are preaching. Same nonsense over and over, ignoring any contradictory evidence. That's preaching. Nonsense. At a bible "college?" It does only if you ignore all the evidence, as you have been ignoring the evidence I presented from my own archaeological research. That evidence alone disproves the global flood at the "exact" date you specify, or anything close.So knock off the preaching and address my evidence: radiocarbon dates right after the flood in the western US, and continuity of particular mtDNA types from before to after your date for the flood. Either of these shows the flood didn't happen as you're preaching it did.

Quite correct.I started a thread just for creationists to challenge the dating methods, particularly radiocarbon dating, but there was no evidence introduced to show those methods are flawed.Creationists let belief overrule evidence, so they won't accept those dates and dating methods no matter what.The overall result? Their objections are meaningless.

As I have posted many times before, a theory is the single best explanation for a given set of facts. It organizes and explains those facts, and is contradicted by no relevant facts.If there are facts that contradict a theory, then that theory must figure out how to deal with them.You believe that you and other creationists have facts that disprove an old age for the earth and an ancient origin for the Grand Canyon. The problem is that your "facts" do not stand up to scrutiny. All the "evidence" you have shown on these various threads for a flood origin for the Grand Canyon has been shown to be incorrect.So its not a matter of bias--the facts fit with an old earth and an old Grand Canyon, but they do not fit with young ages for either.And the facts show there was no global flood during human times.

That is absolutely false.Tree rings alone corroborate radiocarbon dating. So do glacial and lake varves, corals, and speleothems.The young earth belief has been rendered false for a long time now.

Its not a "different opinion" that is the issue here.One "opinion" fits with and explains all the relevant real world evidence, while the other is contradicted by the real world evidence.

Sorry, but your opinions on dating are worthless, as they stem from religious belief rather than facts.Others of us have actually studied dating methods and used them, so we have some knowledge of what they are, how they work, and their limitations.For example, I have studied and used radiocarbon dating for about 40 years; I have been on the advisory board for a radiocarbon laboratory, and both written and lectured on the subject. I presented a one-hour workshop on radiocarbon dating last month.And there are other posters here who are even more knowledgeable than I am!Given this--belief on one hand and hard-earned knowledge on the other, it is safe to say not all opinions are of equal validity.Your opinions when it comes to dating are of no value.

But we do have ways to see into the past! Archaeology, geology, paleontology, sedimentology, genetics, and many other fields let us do just that!And the information from these fields forms a comprehensive picture of the past. This is not a wild-ass guess. And that's enough to show that the rates are constant.If you want to show that the rates vary all over the place, it is up to you to prove it. At this point all you have is belief and wishful thinking.

As the originator of this thread, I recommend summary mode.My basic summary: The original challenge was for Davidjay to provide his numerology showing the "exact" date for the flood that never happened, and it evolved from there into creationists trying (unsuccessfully) to provide evidence for a global flood while denying or ignoring evidence to the contrary. Looks like the only "evidence" for a global flood during historic times is in the bible, and that has been soundly refuted by real-world evidence. As bible-believers can never be convinced by real-world evidence, we are at an impasse--right back where we started.