Summations Only

Yes, but sadly in order to deny those two things you have to deny virtually all of the natural sciences, from genetics and cell biology, through palaeontology, anthropology, biology and zoology generally (including taxonomy and cladistics), great lumps of medicine and pharmacology. Then we have all of geology, radioactive decay, all astronomy and great chunks of physics.

I once started to compile a list of what you have to deny in order to stick with your primitive belief but I lost interest - maybe we should have another go.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

No Faith, they don't; they really don't. The entire body of science is against you - all of it. You obviously can't agree with it but for God's sake don't try to fool yourself into thinking that your beliefs fit with scientific knowledge - that's just barking mad wrong.

Well luckily this is a really easy one to prove, show me a standard undergraduate science text book that teaches creationism in biology and a standard text that teaches. 10,000 year old earth in geology.

So you can't show me any scientific text books that teach a young earth or creation. So you will you will now accept that your opinions do not agree with science.

You are saying that scientists do not need the science that they know? Even for you, that's an odd thing to say.

The entirety of geology depends on the concept of an old earth - without that, none of it makes any sense at all, the study of geology would be no more than stamp collecting with no concern of where the stamps came from, it would just be a collection of rocks with no explanatory power.

Believe what you like, but don't believe that your beliefs are congruent with science or that it doesn't matter; it does.

You mean 100%. You accept what scientific knowledge brings you, you simply say that it's wrong. Weird stuff denial.

You're happy to live with the the world as you see it, you just don't like to hear how it got that way because every branch of science tells you that your book is wrong about it.

Your 90% is therefore nonsense; when a scientist describes the molecular structure of a chimp's DNA or a rock's chemical composition you have no concerns, but as soon as we form any useful conclusions and comparisons between other animals and rock formations that would harm your own pet theory, you disagree. And you disagree 100% of the time.

That's daft enough, but you go one step further and make the ludicrous claim that your non-scientific beliefs are compatible with science. That's just crazy.

Umm, why would I 'dislike intensely' YECs liking true and useful science? My dislike is reserved for them denying science and then making up lies about it.

Ask yourself why you don't care about Hooks Law, disease theory, valency or electrical resistance. You reserve your science denying only to those areas of science that directly contradict your iron age book. Scientists are apparently only right when you and yours are not looking. Makes you wonder how we build stuff that works.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

You disagree with all mainstream science. You disagree with all non-Christians. You even disagree with almost all Christians.

You disagree with old earth creationists Christians and now you disagree with young earth creationists too.

Very soon Faith, you'll only have yourself to disagree with. But of course we've found that you disagree with yourself all the time because you constantly have to make up new excuses for being in the wrong.

I'm sure we could rustle up one of those with almost no effort - compared with the effort required for scientific enquiry, it would be trivial. For god's sake, if the mormons can do it......

Cracked it.

1. Even if no other explanations make sense to you, you still need evidence to support the one you believe.

2. Go out into your garden and get a couple of handfuls of earth; if you can get some sand and grit too so much the better. Tip it into an large glass jug, shake it up well, then let it stand for an hour.

You have just simulated a flood followed by settlement.

You'll notice that sediment is in layers with the largest particles at the bottom and the finest at the top.

That is simple physics and is replicated in nature when floods occur. It is absolutely NOT what geological formations show. We see many layers of all sorts of sizes all out of order.

Think about that for a while.

We KNOW what oceans and rivers and floods do because we can see them and measure them in action. They obey the laws of physics which means that when a flood subsides heavy particles fall to the bottom first and lighter take longer. Heavy particles never fall last - or do you have evidence that shows the opposite?

The lack of genetic variation in species would be extremely strong evidence - probably undeniable evidence - for the Noah story where a global flood 4,000 years ago caused the deaths of all but a breeding pairs of all animals and plants.

Every living animal and plant would show the cheetah's genetic bottleneck marker. Unfortunately for you, we find no such evidence, in fact the opposite, no bottleneck exists, therefore there was no global flood. It's as simple as that.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

You appear to be confusing the word 'answer' with a pile of made up shite.

You simply asserted with no evidence whatsoever, that pre-flood the animals would have been 'enormously greater than it is now'. That's pure nonsense.