Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

Oh, right. Of course, you're the only one with sufficient intellect to see what's so obvious. Hey, that's totally reasonable, right? You're just smarter than anybody who's ever recieved a geology degree?I mean, that's really common in science, right? That it takes someone not only completely ignorant in a field, but laboring under several demonstratable misapprehensions, to see what has evaded every other person who's even remotely studied the issue?Why, perfectly reasonable.

I thought this pre-flood atmosphere was supposed to be a verdant jungle paradise, but atmospheric and soil carbon is the limiting factor in plant growth. (They need carbon to form sugars such as cellulose and glucose that function as energy storage and physical structure.) If you're proposing an atmosphere with so much less carbon, how can that be consistent with the long ages and greenhouse-like living that you've previously proposed as the pre-flood environment?

That's funny, because the flood YEC's imagine behaves exactly like a local flood:1) Water comes in from somewhere else.2) Water goes away to somewhere else.Which are the two things a "global flood" could not do. By all means, think through the consequences of a deluge being a global event; but recognize that such a flood would not operate the way as described in the Bible. If you were of the opinion that science doesn't take imagination, you were quite mistaken. Imagination is required to devise experiment and observation to test theory. That's what we're doing, here - using our imaginations on two competing models to figure out what we can go observe in order to test them.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-10-2006 12:07 PM

But you don't even start from what the Bible says. You start from what you've been told the Bible says. Unless you read Hebrew?

Why? You mean, because we're motivated to find the holes in it? The impossibilities?What leads you to believe that we don't approach our own models with the same goal in mind? We're far more critical about our own theories than we are about any of your flood nonsense. Even talking about it there's a number of flood inconsistencies that we simply ignore for your benefit. That's something we could never ever get away with in regards to actual scientific theories.It's a little frustrating how blind you seem to be to how fair we are - more than fair, the deck is stacked far in your favor. That's how accurate the scientific side is; we're more than confident that we can prevail even with one hand tied behind our backs, as it were. If you think your ideas are being raked across the coals, know that this is nothing. This isn't even a hundreth-part of the kind of antagonism entirely legitimate scientific theories are required to withstand.If you want to see skepticism that will make your eyeballs melt, look up some of Holmes's threads where he attacks what he sees as bad science. You should be thankful that he generally opts not to get involved in these discussions; what you've experienced so far is nothing at all compared to the holes he could find in your reasoning.

That's because every version of the Flood can be shot down, because it didn't happen. That's not my assumption (remember that I used to be a creationist), that's the conclusion from the fact that no Flood model has ever been defensible.I'd ask you to present one that wasn't, if you knew of one, but you've already stated that it isn't your intention to actually defend the Flood.