Did the Flood really happen?

In your first answer to my question you cited tree rings. Message 1608So I asked in Message 1609 why you would question tree ring growth.Do you have some reason to believe trees grew faster a few thousand years in the past?All of the *facts*, not beliefs, the facts about tree rings is they grow one per year. Do you have any facts, not beliefs, any real facts that dispute this process?I don't want to hear any of this "but, maybe" crap from you. If you say tree rings grew faster then show us your evidence.

Nah - I point out the Wiki page, which explains how the scientific method works:Scientific method - WikipediaThen I invite anyone who disagrees with the science to present evidence for their particular flavour of woo (Christianity (or the relevant tiny sect of it), Hinduism, pink fairies at the bottom of the garden, etc).Without evidence, you are, as a matter of definition, unable to attack the current conclusions of the scientific method.In the absence of evidence which contradicts the current conclusions of the scientific method, those conclusions will continue to operate as valid. Accusing science of failing to address an unevidenced assertion doesn’t cut the mustard.

Scientists get to define science.

Science is very good at defining reality that can be tested. Science will never prove nor disprove God nor the Risen Christ because neither of them can be tested.At least not objectively, which is what you always insists should apply.

Actually, they can. It isn't a definitive test but lack of evidence is a test. You accept that lack of evidence indicates non-existence of fairies, Loch Ness Monster, leprechauns, etc. don't you?And a hiding God is pretty lame theology too.

To be precise, the failure in this case is the failure to present a supportable science based challenge. Note that this is a science Forum.Dad, please listen to moderation. If you stay here at EvC, you will get challenged and perhaps someday will challenge others as your arguments become more refined and you are able to make valid points. If you challenge authority (which is ungodly, by the way) you will simply get suspended and we will be at a loss for not having you around to challenge and refine *our* arguments. Well actually some of us *do* care. After all, if you respond to us in a Science Forum, we expect you to respond scientifically rather than emotionally. Which is why I usually stay out of this side of the Forum.

I wasn't including people who grasp at any straw to prop up their failed beliefs.

Yes but not on the grounds of lack of evidence. I reject them based on my belief. You dont get to define what does and does not *make* God lame. Keep these sorts of comments inj Faith & Belief. You also dont get to define evidence over the entire Forum. You best stick to the science side should you choose to throw that word around.

That's much worse, rejecting beliefs that are as valid or more valid than your own just because they interfere with the belief that you fell into by accident. Yes I do. I'm not. I'm using the accepted definition of evidence. Faith and belief is not necessarily a blind rejection of evidence. We have every right to talk about evidence over here.

Lets move this discussion over here. Message 47

Who cares what anyone believes about how fast trees used to grow? Try using some science.

And Aesop gets to define fables. I am more interested in truth and actual meanings. Belief based conclusion are not knowledge or real science, regardless of what some cultish, deluded, self aggrandizing, clueless eggheads may think, in my humble opinion.

You care. Message 1608 But you forgot that.So, again, you got any evidence that "the Nature" changed just enough to negate the damaging facts that make your religious dogmas delusional fantasies?

Clearly not. You haven't presented a single fact to support your position. All you've done is scoff at science. You contradict yourself, Mr. Humility-who-knows-more-than-anybody-else.

I care how fast trees used to grow, and care about what evidence exists for how fast trees grew. Too bad you have no evidence that nature was either the same or not though, eh? You therefore have nothing we could care about.