Origin of the Flood Layers

First, not all "opinions" or interpretations are of equal value.And second, you were peddling belief that is completely contradicted by scientific evidence in the Science Forum. Religious belief unsupported by evidence just doesn't belong in that forum.

I just love it when creationists pick on scientists for their use of "assumptions."To a creationist an assumption seems to mean "automatically wrong."But scientists do not use assumptions that are not supported by evidence. What good is an incorrect assumption? That gets you nowhere.On the other hand, creationists base their entire belief system on an assumption--that the bible is correct. And this is in spite of a massive amount of evidence that the young earth and global flood beliefs are absolutely wrong.So, scientists use assumptions that are well-supported by evidence and creationists hate it, but then creationists turn around and rely on assumptions that are absolutely contradicted by evidence and think that's just grand.As Heinlein noted, "Belief gets in the way of learning..."

For a scientist to debate these issues with Faith/faith is useless.No amount of evidence will change a mind that is rusted shut.

The reason you are having so much trouble here and in many other threads is that you are vastly ignorant of the subjects on which you are opining. It is a willful and self-imposed ignorance.Your head is stuffed so full of dogmatic beliefs that you won't, indeed can't, see something that contradicts those beliefs. This leads you to all sorts of conjectures that you "know" are correct, and you simply can't see why they are wrong even though you are presented with massive amounts of evidence that shows how and why they are wrong.Most of us here are ignorant in fields outside of our specialties, but we endeavor to learn something about a given field before we start posting.

Faith, you discredit your beliefs by posting the way do you.Who can trust someone to be accurate in anything when they have shown themselves to be so inaccurate so often?St. Augustine's commentary on Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim), says it well:

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, ... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do what we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

We know you aren't interested in scientific accuracy, but rather scriptural purity.But you are making many "perfectly logical observations" which are categorically and demonstrably wrong.Scientists are trained to root out errors, so it would not be logical to expect us to just blindly accept your statements and not to attempt to correct the errors we see. This is a debate board, after all.What you see as "obsessive pedantry" is just the result of our addressing the same errors time and again, year after year, with no observable effect. It is amazing that the posters here are as patient as they are.

Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.

​

Note: models are designed to be tested against real-world data. The success of a model is directly related to how well it predicts or "models" something. If some predictions of a model are found to be wrong, that casts doubt upon the model. If many predictions of a model are found to be wrong, that model is probably worthless.Edit to add: Actually a model that is wrong may not be entirely worthless. It may be useful in that it documents a particular approach as being unproductive.Edited by Coyote, : Addition

Faith, your "what-ifs" are not evidence.What you are doing is the functional equivalent to explaining how the moon came to be made of green cheese. An equivalent "what-if" might be that a really giant mouse dropped it on the way through the solar system. Another, more detailed what-if might be that the moon was once made of skim milk and the herb, blue fenugreek (Trigonella caerulea), and a little heat, some pressing, and then some drying turned it into a nice Schabziger cheese. You could even add the date that all these events occurred, as well as a lot more accompanying details.But no matter how much detail you add, it does not change the fact that the moon is not made of green cheese. A whole ark-load of what-ifs does not add up to a single piece of evidence.Likewise, there was never a global flood during human times.

The problem with your "what-ifs" is they are not evidence based, and as such not "plausible." In some cases they are mutually exclusive! And in virtually all cases (or maybe all cases) they are contradicted by an ark-load of evidence.If all of your "what-ifs" were internally consistent and evidence based, you'd have something. The problem is they are ad-hoc explanations made up on the spur of the moment with no supporting evidence, no attempt to be internally consistent and in accordance with the evidence, and designed solely to support religious belief.Talk about a house of cards! Cards are sturdy in comparison.

Sorry, no. We understand very well what you are trying to claim. In almost every case your claims are wrong and we have the evidence to show that.You make things up not to convince us, but to provide you "what-ifs" so that you can continue to think your beliefs are accurate, or at least not contradicted. That lets you continue to hold those beliefs since if you were to accept that your what-ifs are wrong, you would no longer be able to hold those beliefs.So, you cast a cloud of what-ifs all around you, use them as a shield, and replace them as necessary. All without ever worrying much about how sensible they are, how accurate they are, or the ark-loads of evidence that contradicts them.You see, their purpose is not to fool us, but only to fool yourself...

But "Archaeologists get to the bottom of things!"(Although "Our lives are in ruins.")