Summations Only

That's simply not true.The San people of Southern Africa (you would know them as Bushmen), for example, don't have a flood story. And they've been in the area for around 44 000 years.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Exactly. Unless you want to argue that this means that everything else written by those other cultures in the same stories as the flood is written about is also true, then we're still no closer towards demonstrating a creator as I originally said. I'm working with what is presented to me. If you think your theory as to how life began and change through time requires a creator, you'll need to explain how. Otherwise you are just asserting that the Creator is responsible and nothing more. If you believe the Bible provides those answers, then by all means use those answers. How did God create life. Not just 'he shaped clay' or 'he spoke it' but details on how shaped clay plus god breath or god's voice is able to do these things. How divine powers actually work.Otherwise it all just boils down to 'God did it' no matter how many nobs and whistles you put on the story. This is absolutely fine as faith. But it's not science.

And you have evidence of where floods have done something like that?You know Faith, we see floods happen?

Erosion doesn't go that fast, Faith. That made me laugh out loud. I keep showing you these dirty pictures, don't I? Well, it stopped doing it here. Elsewhere it was covered over by the Morrison Formation, the Daakota Sandstone and the Mancos Shale. If only you had a model that would account for this sort of thing other than Flooddidit.Incidentally, here's a picture of the unconformity between the Entrada Sandstone and the Morrison Formation. Did you ever see such a beautiful angular unconformity? Perhaps you could explain to us how flooddidit. No?

And so once again you prove that you do not do science and don't even know anything about what doing science requires.Any scientist that "selected the information that contributes to the arguments I want to make and set aside information that isn't relevant to them" would immediately get fired and all of the work that they had ever done be immediately suspect.What you are doing is scientifically dishonest and certainly not, and cannot be, science.

Couple of issues in relation to this.First off, in your own case, what you are seeking to establish is a scientifically valid explanation for past events, which will gel with the biblical account. So you're looking to do exactly what you reckon science can't do - ie extrapolate validly into the past.That's more of an aside though. The more fundamental point is what the scientific side is claiming (not just in relation to the past, but in relation to all of science). We aren't claiming proof of anything. We're simply saying that our theories represent the best explanations we currently have, based on the evidence we see and the hypotheses we can test. When you remind yourself of this, there can be no objections to scientific theories which relate to past events - they're the experts' best explanations as to what happened.True, they may be wrong - new science may come along and modify or displace them. But for the time being, they are supported by all of the evidence we have been able to find, have led to predictions which has have subsequently been verified, and are consilient with everything else in science.So whilst they may be wrong (a cornerstone acknowledgment of the scientific method), you cannot dismiss currently accepted scientific theories based simply upon the fact that they may be wrong. You have to beat the evidence with evidence of your own. And yes, in relation to theories which relate to past events, you can use your own indirect evidence to do that - you just need to come up with some.(And saying something looks designed is simply a fair reason to look for evidence of a designer - it is not evidence of one. I have seen someone who looks the spitting image of Jack Nicholson - but he failed miserably to get me into any showbiz parties, when I dug for some evidence of his identity).

I'm not sure this is quite right. After all, the hypothesis that God just makes things happen by wishing is a conceivable one (i.e. not a contradiction in terms) and so should be admitted as a hypothesis. We can then investigate it by seeing whether the things that God allegedly wished did in fact take place. (No.)

And you claim to be doing science?That's exactly the opposite of science. That's pure apologetics.Edit: I see Jar said the same thing already, but more eloquently.Edited by Coyote, : Addition

You are making up the whole thing out of your own head because I have never ever once said anything about the Creator as a scientific principle. Sheesh.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

More likely it was all deposited in layers just as it was over the Grand Canyon where the uppermost layers, that would have been still quite wet and not subject to the compaction of the lower layers, broke up and washed away with the receding Flood waters. In that region it did a pretty thorough scouring of the Kaibab plateau, in the region of the pictures it left lumps and blobs.A few thousand years is plenty of time to sculpt arches out of sandstone and hoodoos out of limestone. The hoodoos are sculpted by freezing and thawing that breaks off bits every year, and anything at a high altitude would be subjected to the same conditions. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

First of all I've never said I'm "doing science," what I say is that any true understanding of nature IS science. Period.Also, as an archaeologist do you study genetics, geology? If not then what's your complaint about somebody else studying what pertains to her interest?

Actually, archaeologists now-a-days have to be familiar with genetics and we have always had to know something about geology and soils. Since we use techniques from many other fields, we have to know a lot about them.And one of the first things we learn is to consult experts when we don't know something.

We are not kiddies; we are certainly not your class. I teach airline pilots to fly jets and if I tried to give out information the way you are "giving out information" I would be eaten alive.I think I speak for everyone when I say, "Just get to the freaking point...do you have evidence for creation or do you not? I am running out of patience with you here; you said you have evidence in post #1. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for closing in on 300 posts here and nothing but obfuscation and smokescreen so far. I am starting to skim your posts because you have not said anything worth spending time on so far. Get to the point or I will assume you don't have one and I will stop reading you.Your fake "class" is getting ready to walk out on you.Give your evidence or stop wasting our time!

But the topic Faith is "The Science in Creationism" and what you are doing is not science or even working towards an understanding of nature. Period.What you are doing is trying to make up support for your interpretation of the Bible myths by refusing to actually study nature.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

No. We can see how fast erosion goes: for example we can look at old tombstones or buildings made out of dressed stone. Real processes just can't cut it in your unfeasibly small periods of time.