The Flood = many coincidences

our understanding of what god means by water is sorely lacking and imposing our ideas of time on genesis is in error and doing so is wrong

what jesus may or may not have said has no revelence to the "biblical" flood?????,it would not be fair to make you believe in god,and god is fair.

Perhaps you should try to understand what the empirical evidence shows.If your chosen deity and the empirical evidence are at odds, maybe it is your deity who is wrong.I can go to the multiple methods of dating the past and find support for what I have claimed. You can find only contradictions, and you are left to rely on faith and belief and ancient tribal myths, with no independent or empirical evidence to support your position.Perhaps you are the one who needs to rethink your position.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Guess what, I do believe in God and I am a devout Christian, just not a member of the Christian Cult of Ignorance so once again you are simply posting nonsense.Is it possible that you might actually have anything of value or related to the topic to post or is your only goal to show that the Christian Cult of Ignorance is even more ignorant than anyone could imagine?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

reading into the bible your own ideas and then proclaiming it truth isnt really fair by any stretch of the imagination,never the less scripture teaches us that not everyone is called to believe

prove to me what the god of the bible means

the wisdom of this world is folly to god,1 cor 3.19

the wisdom of this world is folly to god,1 cor 3.19

the wisdom of this world is folly to god,1 cor 3.19

Not my department.All I can do is to advise you what the empirical evidence shows. Empirical evidence -- that is -- evidence that can be discerned by anyone, and confirmed by anyone who takes the time to examine it. It is evidence that is repeatable and verifiable.You seem to be one of those who will deny empirical evidence that is plainly discerned by anyone else because of your a priori religious beliefs.In the Science Forum here that just doesn't cut it (see also tagline, below).Care to try again?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

These are endless questions. i was answering about the k-t line from this creationist view.

Another question that is beside my main point.
Anyways iridium need only be seen as a last act of volcanoes during the flood year and some minor sorting or rather as simply material in front of the overlying sediment. It probably is from volcanoes and simply was sorted ahead of the material that is not seen as sedimentary or volcanic rock formations above the k-t line.

I did do this. I explained that the formations found in the field are to be interpretated as I did. I explained the k-t line as the flood line from a creationist view. Fauna and flora and geology follows this reasoning.
The evidence is the same for everyone but the interpretation is different.
The bible is the boundaries and the reasonings start from here and deal with the well known field evidence.
I provided everything for my case.
its up to the opposition to show why its wrong.
anyways the whole point really was about why some creationists pick the k-t line and not another line.

What continuity? Books written years after the fact? by unknown authors?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Apparently those are questions you cannot answer from the creationist view.Have you ever stopped to ask, "Why not?"

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.