Of course you want scientific research to end--then you won't have to make up the nonsense you keep presenting us with.
you cannot disprove a global flood and there are several reasons for this:
1. do you know what the global flood evidence looks like? if not, how would you identify it?
We don't need to know what a global flood looks like. What we need to know is what
a flood looks like. And that's easy. You saw a picture above from the Channeled Scablands of Washington. There is a ton more evidence of the several floods that hit that region at the end of the last ice age. Those floods can be dated and their extents can be determined.
All we need to disprove a global flood is to examine sediments about 4,350 years old and find undisturbed deposits, with no evidence of a flood event. Just one well-documented example is enough to disprove the global flood at that time, and my own research has included over a hundred sites that contain that approximate time period. No flood at that time in any of them.
2. how deep does one dig? wooley went about 90 feet before discovering virign territory and was forced into renouncing his claim of finding flood evidence.
You just dig deep enough to find deposits of the right age, that is, about 4,350 years ago. Where else would you expect to find evidence telling what happened 4,350 years ago if not in deposits that are 4,350 years old? Forget the Cambrian explosion and geology and the like; all you need is 4,350 year old dirt and you probably have that in your back yard. Why don't you learn some real archaeology and do a little excavation in your back yard and see what you find?
3. if found would it be accepted? wooley is a good example that it would not be.
As usual in science, if you have empirical evidence your claims will eventually be accepted. That's where creationists consistently come up short--they have belief, but no evidence. In fact, their beliefs are contradicted by the evidence!
4. construction of cities, wars, local floods, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, tornados, earthquakes, erosion and so on, all have their hand in destroying evidence, thus we are back to #s 1 & 2.
{for erosion effects see Kitchens The Bible in Its world, pg. 10; fo rthe rest read your history books}
None of this would significantly effect the vast deposits left from a global flood in recent historic times.
5. secular science is so limited that it cannot tell someone what they had for breakfast last week let alone what took place 3-4,000 years ago. the tools are faulty.
The analogy is faulty. We can tell a great deal about what happened 3-4,000 years ago. You just don't want to hear about it.
And I'm sure you'd rather science stopped investigating the subject, eh?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
