Did the Flood really happen?

They do, obviously. Everywhere they look, same same. And you can't provide a single solitary scrap of evidence that suggests that nature changed.

To begin with, there's no such thing - i.e. there is no evidence that such a thing exists.I don't remember seeing a discussion of that here. Maybe you should start one.

Obviously you haven't read any of it. Hint: It isn't about standing alone. It's about how they hold each other up.Come back when you have leared something, son.

That's obviously false. For example, Darwin read Lyell's book on geology while he was on the voyage where he made his observations. He had no idea "what to look for" to back up a theory that he han't even thought of yet. And Lyell had no idea "what to look for" that would back up a theory that hadn't even been thought of yet.

There are threads and threads full of RAZD's correlations. Feel free to go over there and knock any of them out. It isn't just about rocks though. It's about lake varves and ice cores and tree rings.... Go ahead and explain how the age of a tree ring can just "happen" to correspond with the age of an ice core on the opposite side of the world.

You talked about fables and I pointed out that the fables (talking animals) are in the Bible, not in science. And fables are fiction, so I wasn't talking about anything that "used to exist".

Again, no such thing. Science is science. I just follows the evidence. It does not decide ahead of time - like you do - what the evidence "should" be.

You keep getting it backwards. We don't look for negative evidence. That would be like saying we can't find France so it doesn't exist. That kind of silly conclusion is for you, not for science.

I told you, it's all in RAZD's threads. You've had ample opportunity to look at it.

And the basis is not beliefs. There is no place for beliefs in science - e.g. belief in God or belief in the Bible. Nonsense. What you call "origin sciences" are no different from the sciences that produce your computer and your gasoline. They're all based on hard facts - hard facts that can be verified by anybody regardless of their individual beliefs. That's why people of all faiths - Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. - accept the fact of evolution and an old earth. YOU can call it what YOU like but your opinions on what science is or "should be" have no bearing on reality.

You have it backwards again. We don't "make declarations" and then go looking for evidence to back them up. We look at the evidence and then draw conclusions from what we observe. (You should actually have learned about the scientific method in school when you were about ten years old.)And, despite what you may have been told, when scientists form a hypothesis, they look for evidence to falsify it. If they don't try to falsify it, somebody else will.

Sure it is. All you'd have to do is show evidence of a changed nature.Maybe you're confusing "not falsifiable" with "not false". It's true that you can't falsify something that is not false. You're backwards again. I'm sensing a trend.The models are observed to be valid - i.e. they're confirmed by the evidence. THEREFORE, they're considered to be fact. It's all about the evidence. Evidence first, then conclusions. Sure they can. They can look at trees living and dead. They can look at wood from trees that were cut down before any trees that are still living were alive. They can even look at fossil trees. We have a beautiful specimen in our local museum, polished like a gravestone and you can count the rings as if it was cut down yesterday.And don't forget the correlations between completely different methods. Are you ever going to take an honest look at RAZD's correlations?

It's not a belief. It's a conclusion based on the available evidence. You're the one who believes nature changed when you don't have a shred of evidence for that.But I'm glad you agree that belief is a bad thing.

Well, you just admitted that you don't know. You're pretty arrogant to assume that nobody else knows either.

I did. All you have to do is present some evidence that nature changed.And then, of course, you'd have to propose some explaination for HOW it changed - i.e. how God did it. But that goes against your belief system, doesn't it? Your belief system inherently precludes science. Denial is not an argument. Say something worthwhile. It may not tell YOU anything. It does tell "us".