Did the Flood really happen?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

If you claim you did post evidence then give the link. Computers have nothing to do with origins sciences.

The question I replied to was in regards to whether the bible referred to the growth rates of trees in the past. No one said science could or should be able to verify it either way. Science is far far too small and weak and handicapped to do so.

So you did not post evidence, more bluster. Whatever. I march to the beat of a different drummer, thanks.

Since that guy at least professes to believe in God, and dislikes many evil things, I guess he is on your hate list. Not my problem.

You have cllaims that are empty and based on beliefs alone. I know. I have your number.

I am not here to support or make claims so much as to hold up your belief based claims that have fraudulently been labelled as science.