1. You must have missed my point about a hypothetical canopy model skewing the dating methodology.
You never provided the mechanism that would skew dating, Buz, you simply proposed that a canopy could do so. That doesn't work. You may as well say "my bicycle could cause rain." It's a bare assertion that frankly looks completely loony. The presence of water in the atmosphere has nothing whatsoever to do with radiological decay rates.
At the amounts you're talking, of course, it
would crush all life under overwhelming pressure, and blot out the Sun.
I note that you completely ignored those points.
2. You must have missed my points about a two flood model and all of the possibilities and unknowns relative to that model.
A two flood model is neither supported by the scriptures nor makes your problems any easier. The problems with energy levels, age, nd amount of water are
orders of magnitude greater than you seem to believe them to be.
3. The Mt St Helens event models some aspects of the ancient floods, first the flooded earth after which heated evaporation as well as other moving on the waters by the Holy Spirit, God's on the job worker occured. Of course, one must factor in the emensity of the ancient ones and the millenia of time lapse since for other factors to weigh into the model.
Whoa, what?
How does Mt St Helens in any way model a
flood? As I recall, there was no water involved, as is typically the case with
volcanic eruptions.
And the holy spirit?
Miracles? Buz, if you want to explain the flood via
miracles you can feel free to do so. We can't even argue against you except that such beliefs would violate parsimony. But since you're looking for rational, objective evidence of a flood,
miracles don't really fit in.
4. Imo you're too anxious to render another's POV blatantly false when you don't have all the answers yourself.
This thread isn't about
my position, Buz. It;s not about modern geology. it's about
flood geology. Even assuming there are gigantic holes in modern geology as you imply (and there are not), proving modern geology wrong
still wouldn't prove
your model to be correct. Thats another one of those false dilemmas you love so much, Buz.
So since this thread
is about "100 categories of evidence against noah's flood," I'd say rendering the noachian position (ie,
yours) blatantly false would be the
entire point of the goddamned thread.
So. Are you going to actually provide some
evidence to back up your assertions? Perhaps a
mechanism that would explain how your outlandish ideas could produce the results you claim they can?
Or will you continue to ignore rebuttal after rebuttal and focus on how other people make you
feel bad?
One of those belongs on a debate forum. The other belongs in Jr. High.