Summations Only

It isn't known. That is a faith based religious belief. You don't fit theories to religious beliefs.

Yet that is precisely what is not known. And the very evidence of the Bible itself shows that it is filled with contradictions, factual errors and fantasy. And that too is simply not true. What is presented are facts; facts that completely refute many of the tales contained in the Bible from Genesis 1 right on through.It is a fact that there are living things that have never been under water for even most of a year as you have been shown; most recently in Message 14 of this very thread.

You can't include the conclusion in the hypothesis. That's exactly what it does mean. To be a Christian YEC all science from biology, physics, astronomy, geology, palaeontology, embryology, molecular genetics etc etc has to be abandoned. It all has to be wrong for you to be right. You in your armchair without any formal training peering at wiki pages against the entirety of science.It's not working Faith.

I'll say it again: known facts have to be reconciled with the Bible, but the usual stuff pitted against the Bible isn't facts, it's interpretations.

No, they don't. We no more have to reconcile facts to the Bible than we have to reconcile facts to the Iliad or the Harry Potter books.If there really was a recent global flood then the facts will lead us to that conclusion independent of the Bible. The very fact that you have to start with the Bible being true in order to conclude that the Bible is true only demonstrates that the facts don't support the Bible.

The "elect" elect themselves. Nobody else would. That's certainly a good excuse to reject science - and education in general. Reality wins.

And I'll say it again, you can't start with a conclusion - 'the bible is literally true'.If you do, you inevitably fall flat on your face because the facts show that it isn't. If the facts confirmed that the bible was true, there would be no argument. We're only here because it's impossible for your conclusion to be correct AND conform to the evidence as we have it.This is why you are failing in every field of study to make your conclusion fit - it doesn't because it's very obviously wrong. You just can't make it fit anywhere in any scientific discipline.

I said the Bible is God's word. Harry Potter isn't. What you believe is irrelevant. I'm talking about what is required of a Bible believer. The facts of the strata and the fossils that occur on a scale commensurate with the Flood --, and the fossils also point to mass death -- ought to have led you to it already, but the ponderings of scientists reported on this thread manage to ignore these glaring evidences and rationalize them away. I knew the Bible was true before I knew anything about creationism. Knowing its true is what got me involved in creationism. Again, what you believe is irrelevant. The Bible tells us about the worldwide Flood and the observable facts of the enormous extent of the strata and the enormous abundance of dead things found therein confirm it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Considering all the disagreements and different theories the scientists have come up with over the centuries it's pretty ridiculous to hold them up against anything. Being disagreed with by all the evos at EvC proves nothing against anything I've said. I consider my record to be very good as far as pinning down both the Flood and the main problem with evolution goes.

No contradiction there. He refuted the ideas that they had been deposited by any flood or had grown *IN* the rocks. "In" means "inside existing rocks", which was one theory of fossils at the time. He realized that they had grown on an exposed sea floor and later been covered and leater been uplifted. Local floods could not have deposited them without breaking them to bits. Because we know a lot of how the physical world works. Back to magic. The fludde was an incomprehensible raging torrent when you need it, it was a millpond when you need that. Leonardo was smart enough to realize that it doesn't work out just fine, and all the evidence and knowledge we have gained since then supports that conclusion. If the fludde had laid down the sediments and fossils THEY WOULD BE BROKEN UP AND WOULD NOT SHOW OBVIOUS SIGNS OF HAVING GROWN WHERE THEY WERE FOUND.

You're not being disagreed with by people at EVC, you're being disagreed with by the entire scientific community in almost all of its disciplines. We're only reporting the science, they're not personal beliefs.What's even whackier is that creationists also disagree with you. This should give you a clue if nothing else does that your ideas are totally subjective. Of course you do - the more important question is does anyone else? You have proven over and over that convincing yourself is very easy.

Well golly gosh I don't even care if all the scientists in the world disagree with me if I'm convinced they're wrong about something.

As per my signature line, "Belief gets in the way of learning."Perhaps you should stick to the Faith and Belief threads. With your a priori religious bias you are unqualified to do, or even comment on science in any way.

So you agree that Leonardo was wrong about that. Um, the scientists so far quoted disagree with each other quite a bit about how the physical world works.Strata n fossils, strata n fossils, that's what the Flood did.

Do you think things become true by simply pronouncing them to be true? What is required of a Christian is irrelevant to what is true. You could say that a Christian is required to believe that the Moon is made of green cheese. This wouldn't cause the Moon to turn into green cheese. Those are just claims. You need to produce evidence to back these claims. Your beliefs are irrelevant.