Did the Flood really happen?

Then leave the field. You have been bested.Your evil religious intentions are rejected.There is no "other" nature except within your demented twisted little religiously poisoned mind.

You're just stating your belief. Of course it matters who believes it. People of all religions set aside their religious beliefs to accept the evidence. They all have to jump through different hoops to reconcile their beliefs with reality.

I agree, there is no other nature.

No. People believe the claims of origins posited by science over their own personal beliefs. That does not make it anything more than beliefs. In every instance posters raised here so far, what you thought was evidence was actually beliefs foisted onto evidences.

That's your belief.Maybe you should tell us what you think evidence means.

Give the spinning head routine a rest. Nature is what it is today. It exists. The nature of yesterday and tomorrow will also exist and did exist. You have not addressed the temporal nature issue.

Dictionary.com says this."that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."That works for me. Believing, for example nature was a certain way in the past on earth is not proof. Not evidence.

That's not a scientific definition. Science deals with real-world observations and measurements.Suppose you have a dead body on the floor with a hole in it and a guy standing over it with a smoking gun in his hand. List what is evidence and what is not evidence.

quote:

---

That's not a scientific definition. Science deals with real-world observations and measurements.

---

The scientific definition must conform. The present world is what you consider the real world and it is real now. However, the present nature is not real in the far past or the future. Therefore when you offer predictions of the past or future based on the present real world, that is not any measurement at all, but a belief based projection."Science noun
noun: sciencethe intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

Anyone who wants to speak of science must conform to scientific language, syntax and definitions.Anything less is ignorance and will be derided, ridiculed and ultimately ignored.

One can only conform to small and restricted definitions that don't apply to broader issues so much. What one cannot do is apply those little in box definitions beyond the limits they apply.

And the practitioners of the sciences determine where and when any limits apply to scientific terminology. Not some religious yahoo on an internet forum.

You have it backwards. The dictionary definition must conform to the actual use of the word. That's your belief. It isn't worth any more than belief in the Tooth Fairy.So, enlighten us some more on what you consider evidence to be. Suppose you have a dead body on the floor with a hole in it and a guy standing over it with a smoking gun in his hand. List what is evidence and what is not evidence.

Science has limits and those are determined by the scope of knowledge and abilities they have, not by them voting on it! Ha.

The use of the word actually goes beyond the limits of so called science and even actual science. The need for proof of claims does not end when one dons a lab coat and spouts off on TV.