Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

That there was no flood isn't an assumption, it's a conclusion. There's nothing "assumed" about a conclusion; it's a position reached through evidence. Right. That's how we can trust it - it continually gets "more right". That's why we know not to trust the Bible - it is never updated in the light of additional information. It's eternally wrong. You'd have to get the written permission of every single poster you planned on quoting, and describe to them exactly the context and excerpts you planned on using. There's nobody here who can give you blanket permission to copy other people's posts.Given that unapproved quote-mining is one of the most hated characteristics of creationists, I doubt you're going to find many evolutionist posters who are going to let you quote them without a very clear idea of exactly what you're going to use and how you're going to use it.

An erroneous one, but you are correct. That would be a conclusion.The correct conclusion, however, based on the most evidence, is that the theory of evolution is as accurate description of the history of life on Earth as our data allows. At such time that more data is uncovered either the theory will become more accurate, or it will be abandoned for a more accurate theory.That theory will not, in alll likelyhood, be creationism, because creationism is consistently contradicted by evidence. The problem for you is that so far, we've gained so much by moving away from the Bible.Look, let's put it this way. If the Bible really was accurate in every way, and science is the process by which our theories get more accurate (which it undeniably is), wouldn't scientific theories be moving towards the Bible, instead of away from it?As it is now, the only theoreticians who move towards the Bible are the ones for whom the Bible, and not being right, is the goal. When you construct theory with an eye for accuracy in terms of drescribing the world, you inexorably move away from the position of the Bible.We get more right when we move away from the Bible. If the Bible were true, the opposite should happen. Well, it's not a "no", you just have to ask. It's been done before - forum exchanges have appeared in books - you just have to get the permission of everyone you plan on quoting.

Wow. Does that sentence have any meaning whatsoever, or any connection to my post? Because I don't see it. So long as you had their permission, there'd be no copyright issue (obviously you retain copyright on all your original messages.) On the other hand, there is the ethical issue of presenting only one side of an exchange.

That's a pretty common misconception about the "backwards-looking" sciences, like geology, paleontology, astronomy, etc. Moreover, it's trivially false - if science couldn't examine the past, there'd be no such field as "criminal forensics."But forensics does indeed exist, and is regularly employed to ascertain the nature of events in the past. These findings are considered reliable enough to put people in jail, so I rather suspect the same methods will suffice for something so banal as determining the history and age of the Earth.Of course, if we played it your way there's a lot of murderers in prison we'd have to let out.

I don't know about you, but where I've been - which is plenty of places - grasses grow at almost every elevation.So why don't we find their pollen at every level, like we do with some other, simpler plants? Why instead do we only find fossil grass pollen at the upper levels, levels consistent with an evolutionary timeframe that suggests (and is confirmed by genetics) that grasses are recent species?

Since ultmate truth is not accessable to the human experience - that's an undeniable fact - "real people" would be wrong.Science is not the search for truth. It's the search for descriptive models. Those models must never be equivocated with the reality, which is not inherently accessable to us.

But the evidence that past events leave is witnessed, and the tests that can be performed on them are repeatable.So in fact events in the past are accessable to science. In fact, one popular field where that is regularly done is called "forensics." You know, that stuff they do in labs on all those cop shows like "CSI".If you believe that science cannot investigate the past, then you'd better open the prisons, because there's a lot of people convicted for crimes based only on forensic evidence.Funny, though, that "science cannot investigate the past" has not ever succeeded - probably hasn't even been attempted - as a legal defense. Why do you suppose that is? Probably because you're wrong about science being able to investigate the past.