The Impossibility Of The Flood

In simple terms, basically what you are arguing is:

​

Creationists want to see the flood as a miracle that was done by god but because they have scientific standards to hold to they want to explain it scientifically.

​

Yet they dont realize that if the flood happened and it is scientifically explained... Then there is no god factor involved anymore, because the explenation will be a natural one.

​

So even if they turn out to be right, it will leave no way for them to point to god and say "he did it".

​

Creationists want the miracle to be confirmed by science -- that is, they want the scientific evidence to confirm their beliefs and give them the credibility of science.But when science shows that the evidence for a global flood about 4,350 years ago is totally lacking, they don't want to believe what science has found.It is a case of accepting only positive results and ignoring or denying any negative results. Creation "science" at its best!Edited by Coyote, : Spelling

You are off by about 63 million years. Yes, that is something we can fault you for.You are cherry picking from billions of years, looking for events that you can attribute to this flood.But your story doesn't form a consistent whole. You have to ignore too much data, and manipulate too many events in your efforts to support the flood story.The "minor" problem of a 63 million year difference in dating is one example.Sorry, it just doesn't fly.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Wrong; creationists have to ignore a huge amount of data that does not fit their a priori beliefs, and they have to distort and misrepresent still more data.And that's not enough; they also have to deny much of science (as that is what you folks do when you make your silly claims about dating).Your claim to "apply the same data" is false. Creation "science" is religious apologetics, the exact opposite of real science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.