Summations Only

Entirely correct.But in the dating threads YECs make no headway in showing modern dating methods are in error.Even the RATE group, spending over a million dollars of creationist money didn't come up with anything that would show that science is wrong. In fact, their data showed science is correct--but in typical creationist fashion they refused to accept their own results.

A recent global flood as described would leave a lot of evidence. Some examples:First, sediments and erosional features would be widespread and easily discerned.Second, there would be massive discontinuities in fauna and flora as earlier species were killed off worldwide then repopulated from one small area. This would also produce a very distinctive genetic bottleneck.Finally, archaeological evidence would show many cultures or civilizations which were wiped out by a massive flood at the same time.

This is the last thing creationists want. If they specify a date for the flood then that can be examined scientifically.Why do you think the age estimates range from several thousand years ago to the Cambrian (500+ million years ago) and everywhere in between? It's a moving goalpost precisely so it can't be disproved!They simply can't admit that the idea of a recent global flood is a myth.

Has this something to do with the date of the flood?

So you would place the flood at perhaps a thousand years or so after 5772 years ago?Now we're getting somewhere.Next, is the flood local, regional, or global?

The flood as described in the bible never happened.Only by twisting things around to make it a little trickle of a flood can you argue there was such a flood, and by then it doesn't match the biblical myth.But at least we agree that the mythical flood was recent, eh?

Nonsense.I spent many hours as an undergraduate engaging in literary criticism, while getting a degree in English.That didn't make any of the fiction or poems "factual" or any of the events they described necessarily real.You need to start learning the difference between myths, wishes, tribal tales, and reality.What I have been trying to do is get creationists to pin down a date for the flood so scientific evidence can be brought to bear on the question of whether it occurred in any particular area or globally; or at all.So far you have retreated from the claim of a massive "global" flood with waters higher than Mt. Everest, and are down to a small local or maybe even regional flood.This actually fits with some post-glacial events in the Black Sea area that have been discovered by archaeologists. The details are still being worked out, and more information is needed, but at least we have something that could be the "genesis" of the flood myth.That's a good start, eh?

You creationists really have to get your stories straight. It does none of you any good, nor does it enhance your credibility, to come up with dozens or hundreds of different interpretations of the bible, all of which are the one true interpretation.And none of which are confirmed by empirical evidence. By "anti-creationists" do you mean scientists, and others who rely on empirical and testable evidence instead of ancient tribal myths? Off topic. Reserve your catechism for another thread maybe?

Yes, I am aware of that.But that's not something to be proud of. There are an estimated 4,000 different world religions, with an estimated 40,000 different versions of Christianity alone.Those who are proposing a global flood should first work out their disagreements among themselves and then try to convince others of the accuracy of their claims. Having so many different claims really ruins any credibility creationists in toto may aspire to.No sooner does one creationist group proclaim the absolute TRVTH of one date and characteristic for the flood that another group decries that as heresy and proclaims their version of the TRVTH. Of course, dozens or hundreds of other groups all have their own versions.This is what I mean by moving the goalposts; creationists as a whole just can't agree on much of anything, let alone the date and nature of the global/regional/local/mythical flood.

Your post shows that what I claimed is pretty accurate.But that's fine, let creationists all espouse different beliefs; let each one espouse a different belief.But until creationists can come up with some kind of evidence to evaluate these competing claims, why should scientists and others who rely on evidence not just summarily reject them all?Really, discussing things with creationists is a case of moving goalposts. No sooner does one claim the flood was ca. 4,350 years ago but another interjects that the K-T boundary represents the flood, and then another chimes in with the Cambrian explosion. It doesn't matter that any particular creationist or group sticks to their own TRVTH. In the aggregate, they can't agree on much of anything.Why should those who rely on evidence pay any attention to any of them?

Now that's a good point!Humans certainly have a lot of learning to do, and perhaps a lot of unlearning as well.

"To stay young requires unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods."
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

We may not have written history, but we have archaeology and a lot of other -ologies. And we can date human history far more accurately than tribal myths. Adam is a tribal myth. They are myths. No. There were a variety of picture writings that we have been unable to decipher. Nonsense. Just word salad nonsense. Genesis is wrong (again). Human speech can be tracked through the shape and position of a small bone in the throat. The origin of that bone can be traced back to about 530,000 years ago.Reference: Martnez I, Arsuaga JL, Quam R, Carretero JM, Gracia A, Rodrguez L, Human hyoid bones from the middle Pleistocene site of the Sima de los Huesos (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain), Journal of Human Evolution, 2008, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 118-124. PMID: 17804038You are long on tribal myth and speculation, and short on scientific evidence.Try again?

Adam is a tribal myth.And you failed to address the evidence I posted above showing the development of bony structures associated with speech back some 530,000 years.Your tribal myths are just plain wrong, but you are unable to admit any errors. You deny or misrepresent any evidence that's inconvenient to you and your myth cycle. That's why you are doing apologetics, not science.

No.As Tolkien wrote, "The tale grew in the telling."Any ark which was on the top of even a small mountain would require water levels worldwide thousands of feet higher than we know today.Gathering all the animals just would not happen. Maybe some rancher gathered his personal animals and barged them somewhere, but that's about it.Sorry, the tale is just so full of holes that that boat don't float.

And since you stopped by, what's your take on the date and magnitude of the flood?IAJ feels it was recent, maybe in the order of 4,500 years ago, and local or at most regional.Is he right or wrong, and why?