The Flood = many coincidences

Hi Buz,Let me make things a little more clear for you.Your years of participation at EvC Forum have been marked by countless unsuccessful attempts to explain to you how science works, So unsuccessful were they that we no longer even try. This isn't a problem if you remain a minor contributor, but it becomes a big problem when you attempt to be one of the lead advocates for the creationist viewpoint in a thread.AdminNosy says he's willing to let you make a few more attempts at increasing the amount of focus on evidence, but if there's no improvement then we'll have to ask you to curtail your participation in this thread.Please, no replies.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Having not participated in this thread as Percy in over two months, I will now assume a moderation role.Robert, the Forum Guidelines state:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

The full content of your Message 311 was this: Could you please provide evidence for the claim that sedimentary rock below the K-T line is from the flood year.For those of the countervailing view: Could you please provide evidence for the claim that sedimentary rock below the K-T line is from 65 million years ago and before.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Robert, please begin supporting your conclusions with the evidence leading to those conclusions. Right now this means providing the evidence that leads to the conclusion that the k-t line represents Noah's flood.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hello, Mr. Bloomberg! Welcome to EvC Forum!Unfortunately you've already been suspended for troll-like behavior - ignoring ongoing discussion and posting the identical message three consecutive times tend to be dead giveaways.If by chance you're not a troll then you can appeal for a restoration to active status by sending me an email (Admin) or a PM (Messaging) explaining yourself.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Other then your say so, how do we know if this is true unless you describe the evidence you are using as well as your manner of interpretation?Please describe the evidence you used and the details of your interpretation of that evidence in order to conclude that the K-T line is the result of a flood 4400 or so years ago.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Robert,That you can't provide what I'm asking for tells me that you either don't understand the request, or you have no answer but are responding anyway. Either way, the net result is that you're repeating your unsupported claims over and over again, which is disallowed by the Forum Guidelines:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

What you need to do is describe evidence of at least an arguably scientific nature that causes you to conclude that the K-T boundary is a flood layer from around 4400 years ago. That it exists, which is the only evidence you've cited so far, is not evidence for a flood or for any particular age.Perhaps it would help if a stepwise approach were taken by posing one specific question at a time for you, for example: What evidence leads you to conclude that the K-T boundary is around 4400 years old?For those of a countervailing opinion I ask the opposite question: What evidence leads you to conclude that the K-T boundary is around 65 million years old?Edited by Admin, : Typo.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I think Mr. Byers might find it easier to identify evidence regarding the age and cause of the K-T boundary if those who believe it ancient went first.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Robert,You continue to describe what you believe without providing any real world evidence for why you believe it. If someone with an opposing viewpoint were to say, "The radiometric evidence for the K-T boundary says that it was deposited 65 million years ago," what could you offer in rebuttal?Others of your statements that require evidence: What evidence leads you to conclude that the K-T boundary layer was a sedimentary layer deposited by water? Please describe the details of the "stuff in the ground" that you are interpreting (appearance, context, compositiion, results of chemical and radiometric analysis, etc.) and the details of your method of interpretation. If this is an argument that "No one was there therefore no one could know," that means you couldn't know either and should not be arguing that you do know from your interpretation (still undescribed) of the evidence you're looking at (still undescribed).Say you were conducting a science class in how to interpret geological layers, and your example was the K-T boundary. Please explain how you would teach the class to analyze and interpret this layer in order to reach the conclusion that it is a sedimentary layer around 4500 years old.

Hi Everyone,I'm going to suspend my efforts to actively moderate this thread for now, but I will continue to monitor it. Robert doesn't seem to understand anyone's requests for evidence, but he seems sincere and I don't think increased administrative pressure would be any more likely of success.This has been a courteous and considerate discussion, but largely empty because Robert will present no specific evidence to support his case, instead making vague and unspecific references. He says, "I only use the common knowledge," but never tells us what he thinks that common knowledge is. He says, "I use the important points they use," but never tells us what he thinks those important points are. He says, "Look at what the non creationist side says about its deposition processes and time," but never tells us what he thinks the creationist side says.It has been said many times here that you can't reason someone out of a position someone never reasoned themselves into, and Robert has revealed no reasons based on evidence for what he believes. I advise those arguing from evidence and pleading with Robert for evidence to be cautious in allocating their time to this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Robert,Sorry to have to poke my nose in here as Admin again, but you're getting hung up on definitions.At the time I gave this forum the name Geology and the Great Flood back in 2001 I had in mind a specific definition of geology, one that is captured pretty well over at the Wikipedia article on geology. Whether or not Wikipedia is correctly defining geology, that is the definition that is in play in this thread.If you would like to debate the definition of geology then please propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics and I will review it as quickly as I can.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You're either completely clueless or an incompetent spammer. If the former then please be careful to post about the topic next time. If the latter then please just go away.