Seashells on tops of mountains.

Just to be pedantic, he's been beatified but not canonized, so that would be "the Blessed Nicholas Steno".---Here's Da Vinci on fossil shells.

DP.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Your guesses at what other people think have been so ludicrously stupid and wrong lately that perhaps you should stop guessing what people think and start asking them instead.

Okay, let's spell it out.Water flows downwards.Creationst "flood geology" is crap because it ignores this simple fact.

So this "flood doctrine" involves denying Genesis 7:19 and 8:4, both of which mention the existence of mountains?

If you have any evidence that a different atmosphere would change the half-lives of radioactive isotopes, now would be a great time to present it.If you have any evidence for this different atmosphere, or for the flood, that would be nice too.If, on the other hand, all you have is a bunch of ad hoc arguments and wishful thinking --- then you might be a creationist.

I wonder what you think the words "face value" mean. Using a science known as "geology".

I've told you about this before. You are making elliptical remarks about the fantasy world in your head. Those of us who live in the real world cannot follow this, because we have no idea to what you are referring.

What do you think "at face value" means?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Remeber that the shells are, strictly speaking, in mountains, not on them. This is the result of the observable processes of sedimentation and uplift. You have yet to explain how a magic catastrophic flood washes seashells up mountains and then puts them inside the mountain without in any way disturbing their natural positions. Unless you believe people who actually study rocks, who know that you're talking rubbish.

Making stuff up, based on no evidence, about subjects of which you are ignorant is not the same as "using logic and reasoning".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Why a Biblical flood, rather than a team of winged pigs or a geological uplift fairy?Or, hey, why not real processes which exist, which we can observe, and the action of which is confirmed by the evidence. Scientists certainly never apply what you call reason and logic. This is because they use actual reason and logic. Oh, and evidence. Remember evidence? It's that stuff people can supply for claims which are actually true.

They're impossible myths contrary to the law of nature for which there is no evidence.Like the magic flood. Same as you. Stuff I made up. None whatsoever, hence my rejection of claims that it was caused by a magic flood. Ask to see it. Since there is no corroborative evidence for the bits of the Bible I'm disputing, this conversation is usually quite short.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You might as well say: "Until a qualified creationist mathematician comes on board and says that 2 + 2 = 5, I will go on offering my own opinion that 2 + 2 = 5."You assert that you will go on reciting rubbish until someone "qualified" in rubbishism comes along and agrees with your rubbish.Now, here's a thought. Perhaps you could stop reciting rubbish until someone "qualified" does agree with you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So, you are attempting to apply what you call "logic and reason" to subjects of which you know sweet-bugger-all.How did you suppose that that was going to turn out, really?Even applying real logic and reason to those subjects wouldn't help you if you tried to apply them to subjects of which you know nothing.If you have any interest in what the word "logic" means, then I used to teach basic logic at the University of Leicester and would be happy to help you out.If, on the other hand, you wish to continue to apply the word "logic" to creationist gibble-gabble rather than to actual logic --- then I guess you're a creationist.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.