What does the Great Barrier Reef tell us about both Evolution and the Age of things?

Slight changes in salinity, temperature, or silt density will murder a coral reef. They simply won't survive.If the reef is that old, and it would have to be, at the rate that they grow, then there has never been flooding in that area. By definition this means that a global flood has never occured.

Corals aren't plants, Whatever. They don't need sunlight. They're invertebrates. They don't grow from minerals - minerals kill them.Corals feed on small plankton. Too much sediment in the water chokes their feeding areas. A change in temperature shocks them to death. A change in salinity destroys the osmotic balance of their cells.Coral are notoriously fragile. They're not plants. They're little tiny non-motile animals with very specific environmental requirements.

Hypothetical situation: I shoot you in the head and kill you. Are you less dead because you were at the All-you-can-eat buffet?The extra food source won't matter - the change in environment will kill the coral, all by itself.

That's not even close to what we're saying. You either know that and are being deliberatly obstuse, or you don't understand what we're saying, at which point I don't understand why you're participating in this thread in the first place.Of course zooplankton need nutrients, and the silty global floodwaters might indeed be a great environment for them.It's not going to matter, though, because the coral will be too dead to eat. It doesn't matter how much food there is for the coral - it'll be dead! So, then, you admit that the global flood never happened? Because that's what we're saying - the coral reef is older than the timeframe of the gloabl flood, and there's no way it would have survived if the flood had happened.

I vote that he stays. But I wish he'd take some of your suggestions to heart...Nonetheless I don't think censorship is the answer, and I don't think he's that disruptive. No more than Brad, anyway.