What I am suggesting in one way, is that if the physics and/or physical relationships were different in any way it could be suggested that it couldn't be under any but the exact same circumstances to be validated by accurate testing. My hypothetical example would be an air tight room filled with pure oxygen (old world) then something caused the door to open and the result would be a mixture of elements that is testable now. If you want to call that magic, thats fine. Although I loosely suggested it, I would rather discuss the evidence within modern parameters.
This means nothing. It doesn't explain anything nor does it provide any testable mechanisms. All it amounts to is wishing.
Why would we expect this? And what evidence is there to suggest that this isn't the case? I was under the impression that coal was made up of organic material which could include animals.
The premise from the "Hovind Theory" was that plant material became coal and animal material became oil. That is what was being tested against the evidence (and found lacking).
I've never seen a plant run, but I have seen animals run. Why couldn't we assume that the animals headed for higher shelter during the flood? This would explain this quite well.
But no all animals can run fast, so some would always be caught. Also, if we assume the global flood there is a point at which all those running animals run out of high ground. Therefore there should be piles of animal fossils at the tops of hills. Not found.
What do you think would be evidence for a differing set of physical laws, if that were the case? Also, why would any scientist claim something like supernatural causes even if they did find "evidence" for it?
Evidence of things not behaving as they do now, whereas we see the opposite -- from the Oklo fossil reactors to Super Nova 1987A.
It is uniformitarianism. The treatment of the evidence, no matter how you spin it, is still based off of uniformitarianism. Now, I don't know how anyone could verify a contrary claim to this idea, but it doesn't mean uniformitarianism is a fact. This evidence does in fact support a single viewpoint because it relies on fundamental flawed assumptions. And some would argue for atheistic reasons.
When you redefine terms to mean things not the way they are used by other, you enter the realm of talking about fantasy and delusion.
Looks like they ruled out a single catastrophic event because they interpreted the data in way agreeable with the modern view of geologic time scale.
Looks like they ruled out a single catastrophic event because they were unable to find any possible evidence for it. If that is bias, then it is in the physical evidence and not in the interpretations based on evaluation of all the evidence.
Enjoy.