Did the Flood really happen?

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.

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.

But the use of the word outside science has no bearing on the use of the word in science. We're not talking about anybody on TV. If that's where you get your science information, it's no wonder you're so badly misinformed.Edited by ringo, : Added quote.

It has nothing to do with my wishes or your ruling. When scientists use the word "evidence", it has a specific meaning. When lawyers use the word, it also has a specific meaning - but significantly different. Indeed it is - but you haven't demonstrated yet that you understand what evidence is.Let's try again: There's a dead body on the floor; we'll stipulate that it is dead, no vital signs, room temperature, etc. There's a hole in the body and a man standing over it with a smoking gun. And there's a bust of Napoleon on the mantel.List what is evidence and what is not.

It isn't a belief. It's a conclusion based on evidence, evidence like tree rings, lake varves, ice cores, fossils, etc. Tree rings, lake varves, ice cores, fossils, etc. ARE evidence. Your idea of a voodoo "different nature" is an empty claim. Not quite. Evidence is stuff we use to decide IF claims are valid. We do not make claims and then look for evidence to support them. We look at the evidence and then draw conclusions from it. We can talk right now. Why are you so afraid to tell us what you think evidence is? We need to understand the evidence in the room before we can go on to more complex problems. You don't seem to have any basic understanding of evidence yet, or any desire to learn about it.Deal with the evidence in the room first: There's a dead body on the floor; we'll stipulate that it is dead, room temperature, no vital signs, etc. There's a hole in the body and a man standing over it with a smoking gun. And there's a bust of Napoleon on the mantel. List what is evidence and what is not.

You don't use that ridiculous backwards methodology in real life, do you?On Sunday morning, you don't assume that your church has moved to some random new location, do you? You don't demand evidence that it's in the same place as last week, do you?I don't think you do. That would be crazy. You assume that its location HASN'T changed unless you have evidence that it HAS changed.So why should science follow your silly instructions when you don't?

You should. A lot of it is self-serving. Unless it can be confirmed, any written record should be taken with a grain of salt. There was no "different record" of the past. Noah's flood, in particular, was not noticed by the Chinese or the Indian civilization. The oldest pyramids (c. 2630—2610 BC) don't bear any marks from Noah's flood (c. 2472 BC).

There was no (worldwide) flood that we know about. The date for the flood comes right out of the Bible. The dates for the other, older civilizations are verified both historically and scientifically.I thought you said you didn't reject historical records. Or did you mean that you blindly accept the Bible, talking snake and all, but you reject all other historical records?

Not according to their historical documents. I thought you said you accepted historical documents.

Exploits and battles of kings are a lot more plausible than a world-wide flood. A world-wide flood is a lot more likely to be an exaggeration of a smaller flood. Sure it rained, sure there were gardens, but there's no evidence of a worldwide flood.It's pretty clear that your acceptance of the flood is neither scientific nor historical; it's strictly religious.

You're the one who's misusing the word. You can believe what you want but you don't get to call it science or define what science is.

How does subduction figure in to that? My understanding is that continents - and tectonic plates in general - are growing on one side and shrinking (subducting) on the other, leaving their size roughly constant.

But Juvenissun is saying that, "the land (continent) on the earth becomes larger and larger through time." Message 1916My understanding is that the continents are rearranging their pieces but not changing significantly in total size. Gondwanaland was pretty much the same size as all of today`s continents, wasn`t it)

That's what I'm questioning. Do you have any evidence that that is happening?And even if it is true, I don't see what that has to do with the Flood being possible.

Different places have different actual ages.And no, I don't see what the age of a place has to do with the possibility of a flood, especially a worldwide flood. How easy it is to flood a continent depends on the height as well as the area (assuming we want to cover all of the land). But that depends on how high the highest land is, not on the size of the continents.