Wumpini you have earnt two nominations for post of the month via your participation in this thread. Small comfort and in the grand scheme of things rather trivial. However.....
Frankly this is almost unheard of for those on the creationist/strong theistic side of the debate (whether you believe that is because of inherent weakness of argument or inherent forum bias is irrelevant in this context - The fact is Wumpini has earned this recognition)
However you feel that they have been expressed the arguments of Rhavin et al are deeply felt and worthy of your consideration.
The nature of science is not to make facts fit preconceived and philosophically biased conclusions but to form conclusions based on empirical evidence and the facts of nature.
Does your view meet these criteria? Does the view you oppose? In the absence of biblical "truth" would a great flood be a viable conclusion from the physical evidence alone?
These are the questions you must ask yourself.
You are doing a better job than most of supporting the argument you advocate. Whilst I do not pretend to agree with your conclusions I urge you to continue on the basis that it will be beneficial both to yourself and those opposing you if you do.
That in itself is a compliment of sorts.........
™ Version 4.2
