Did the Flood really happen?

My position is that science does not know. If someone claims they do know in the name of science we all had better scoff.

Great! Now we may be getting somewhere.How fast did trees "used" to grow? What evidence exists for how fast trees used to grow?I'm glad you care about this evidence. That means you know what that evidence is. What is it?

If science doesn't know, who does? If science doesn't know, how did it produce the computer you're looking at?

As far as science is concerned, they do not know how fast tree used to grow. If you are aware of some scientific study on the matter I may have missed, feel free to post it.As far as the bible record of the deep past on earth goes, trees apparently did grow super fast, and unlike anything we observe today.

If science doesn't know, it doesn't know and should shut up about it. If you claim it does then you should post about it.

where does it say that in the bible?

Well, we have a garden planted in creation week. Then we have man eating fruit from trees a week later! That is fast indeed. In another instance we see that birds were sent from the ark, and returned because there were no trees and plants. A week later, lo and behold, a bird returned with a fresh tree leaf in it's beak.In the bible, the future is the key to the past (not the present, as science assumes). That is because the future is very much like the past in many ways. We also see trees in the future that display fast growth. The trees bear fruit every single month! They also bear a different type of fruit on the same tree every month.Edited by dad, : No reason given.

Sure we do. Trees of old grew at the same rate as trees today. No difference. None.Why should we think otherwise? Is that your evidence? Your errant book of fairy tales? Rejected.Got any real evidence that trees used to grow faster?No. No you don't because they didn't.

Even the Bible doesn't support that.

You forgot to cite evidence trees grew at the same rate. Funny, that. No one cares what you believe, or why you believe. The question is not 'why should science believe...'. The question is what does science know. You should admit you do not know at what rates trees used to grow.

Except I gave two examples in post 1642.

Your rote rejection of the evidence presented is ignored.YOU still have no evidence that natural processes differed yesterday to today.Your bible is not such evidence since its 3000 year old goat herder myths have no independent corroborating lines of evidence to sustain them.You have nothing but the childish antics of see no reality, hear no reality, acknowledge no reality. You are a poster child for religious nut jobs.

Did you notice the word "if"? I said IF science doesn't know....It does. I did:

quote:

---

If science doesn't know, how did it produce the computer you're looking at?

---

Did scientists invent computers by using the same methods that you claim don't work? Or did creationists invent computers by reading the Bible?

Those examples can not be verified empirically - like the examples of talking bears. Therefore they can not be considered evidence.

quote:

---

YOU still have no evidence that natural processes differed yesterday to today.

---

YOU still have no evidence that natural processes are the same yesterday to today.

quote:

---

Your bible is not..

---

I do not care what you think or believe about God or His word. History is a colossal sympathy of fulfilled prophesy. I do not need your affirmation.