The Bible comes up in CONTEXT of certain challenges Percy, there are dozens of threads where it never comes up. Don't act as if it's my only way of posting. When the Biblical premise is challenged I have no choice but to answer it. Forget the Biblical premise and focus on the geological and other scientific issues involved and the debate can proceed.
Faith, much as I would hate to see you "disappeared" from EvCForum, this is precisely the problem you face if you wish to continue: the ONLY way this outlook can be sustained in productive discourse is to substantiate the Biblical claims with
external referants. In other words, you are free to take the Flood as literally true, but then you MUST find supporting evidence to support it. In science, this is usually done in the form "if...then...". Restating it with your favorite example,
if the Flood is true,
then we should see evidence in the form X, Y, Z. Then you could look for it in the relevant literature. If you DO see X, Y, and Z, then the Flood is supported. If you see X and Y, but not Z, then maybe the Flood is only weakly supported by the evidence, or perhaps your expectations of what would be found need to be revised. If you don't see X, Y, and Z, then there may be another explanation, but most likely the (lack) of evidence suggests that the Flood may not be the best explanation of what the rocks actually show.
However, in your case, you are almost always in the position of not seeing X, Y, and Z or anything else in the real world. Moreover, you are in the position of having to account for A, B, C, D etc, that simply COULDN'T be the result of a Flood. You have to take all those things into consideration. However, rather than re-evaluating your position, you simply repeat your initial premise. This has been your tactic in all three of the most recent bio threads in which you participated. You make assertions without foundation - pure speculations - ignore any attempts to show you that your assertion may not be valid (including refusal to read articles provided for your benefit and then deny that the articles say what your opponent claims it says), and in the end throw up your hands and refuse to participate further.
This latter has been especially frustrating to me personally. Even after I went way out of my way to actually show where you were right AS WELL as where you were wrong, you never even bothered to comment. Percy is correct: you need to truly re-evaluate your participation in certain threads.
Edited by Quetzal, : clarification