Summations Only

Faith realizes all of that.However, when that evidence contradicts the bible it is simply wrong. Or scientist's interpretations of it are wrong. Or something.

This illustrates the difference between creation "science" and real science.Real science is evidence based.Creation "science" must conform to an individual's interpretation of the bible. And it seems no two individuals have the same interpretation.That's why you see, for example, the global flood placed anywhere from 4,350 years ago to 252 million years ago--and no amount of evidence will change any minds.

1) In science nothing is ever "proved."2) In science, one "argument" can disprove an hypothesis or theory.In other words, in order to make a scientific argument for a global flood you have to account for all the evidence, not just one small bit of it. And one small bit of contrary evidence is all it takes to disprove a global flood.If you're going to pretend to do science, at least pretend to follow the rules.

I just love it how creationists, whose only interest in science is destroying it, feel so free to lecture scientists on the nature of their profession.What a joke!

If you want to study floods, and what they do, "The catastrophic floods from Glacial Lake Missoula and Lake Bonneville are among the largest known floods in geologic history."Caution: This website contains data. Creationists proceed with caution!Ice Age Floods-Discover Glacial Lake Missoula and Lake Bonneville

No, that is not the best explanation.That is just you grasping at strawmen in a desperate effort to shoehorn your beliefs into real world evidence.You should take the following advice to heart -- this passage seems to have been written expressly for you:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

​

Saint Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

That is painfully obvious. You have shown that you are completely oblivious to any evidence that contradicts your belief. You appear willing to go to any lengths to deny, ignore, misinterpret, or misrepresent any evidence that contradicts your belief no matter how well-supported it is. In doing so, you come up with the most hare-brained explanations I've ever seen. And that is completely false. Science follows the evidence, a trait you might try to emulate. Your grasp of science and the scientific method is tenuous at best, and completely contrary most of the time. Because science has formulated theories that contradict your a priori beliefs, you end up being anti-science while pretending the opposite. False. A hundred times false.In response to evidence that contradicts your beliefs, you come up with the most outlandish "interpretations." When it is pointed out to you how you have ignored some evidence, denied other evidence, and misinterpreted or misrepresented the rest, you just dig in your heels and proclaim that you are right and science is wrong.And every once in a while you admit that you are following belief no matter the evidence to the contrary. Then in the next post you claim to be doing science.I think we can sum up your approach with a line from my signature: "Belief gets in the way of learning."You're the poster-child for that bit of wisdom. And you're the poster-child for the wisdom of St. Augustine, that I posted earlier:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

​

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

​

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

If the shoe fits...

Scientists, regardless of their training and education, must follow the scientific method.Creationists, regardless of their training and education, must follow scripture and dogma.Scientists have to follow the evidence where it leads, as there are thousands of other scientists who will point out any errors. And errors are not rewarded in science.Creationists have have to follow scripture and dogma, as there are thousands of other creationists to correct them on those matters. And deviants are banned for heresy. (Evidence does not enter into the picture.)

And things are fine until belief is contradicted by evidence.Young earth vs. old earth is one example.A global flood ca. 4,350 years ago is another.Then what do you do?

The channeled scablands of eastern and southern Washington state alone disprove the idea of a global flood at ca. 4,350 years ago.Ice Age Floods-Discover Glacial Lake Missoula and Lake BonnevilleBut we don't see any discussion of that flood even though it was three times older than the global flood, and it left evidence clearly read by various -ologists.The global flood, much younger in time, should have 1) erased all evidence of the older channeled scablands floods, and 2) left evidence on a much larger scale worldwide.Didn't happen.But if one wants to see what a real flood can do, that website is a good source of information.

That is wrong in so many ways!You're just making things up, as usual.You can't seriously be equating an event that is demonstrably recent (post ice age) with a global flood that you keep placing 50 or 250 million years ago.That's pretty silly, even for you. And it just doesn't work.

RAZD, you just aren't getting the Grand picture, if you'll pardon the pun.The evidence does not matter to Faith and her brethren.They have a specific belief system that has no necessary relationship to reality, and they are not going to change that belief for anything. Even reality.They will deny, obfuscate, misrepresent, and ignore any evidence that does not conform to their belief system. For scientists, facts are stubborn little things that have to be accounted for and explained. Not so with religious extremists. If facts don't fit their belief system, away with them!Watching and participating in these debates has been a learning experience for me. A very scary one.I can see now how short a distance it is from denying reality to support one's beliefs, to being willing to die for one's beliefs, to finally be willing to kill to enforce one's beliefs.Maybe Lennon was right.

If it is a riverbed cut into limestone, it is erosion.

Creationists have been trying desperately to find those "holes" for decades and have failed.But then, they don't need real evidence. Belief is enough for creationists.I don't know why we even bother presenting evidence to you folks, as you just ignore it.Your deity must like stubborn, sullen ignorance a lot, as he created so much of it.

In other words, if it contradicts your a priori belief and you can't think of some way to distort it you don't want to deal with it.We understand. And you absorb only that which confirms your beliefs, ignoring or distorting the rest.We understand that too.You have shown us how you deal with contrary evidence for quite a while now. It is not one of your more endearing characteristics.And it is the exact opposite of how real science operates.