Did the Flood really happen?

First you'll have to learn what science is. You're a long way from anybody taking your opinions seriously.

Results are evidence. Computers are evidence thst science gets results.

I'll type slowly so you can keep up: Computers... are... evidence... that... scientists... know... what... they're... doing.When you get on an airplane, do you go up to the cockpit and tell the pilot he's flying all wrong? The rest of us take his thousands of hours of successful flying as evidence that he knows what he's doing.

Your reading comprehension is off. I have never said that I am the only one who knows anything about science. I seldom claim to know anything at all.As the old joke goes, I don't have to run faster than the bear. I only have to run faster than YOU.I only have to know more about science than YOU, which is not much of a feat.

It doesn't matter what computers do. I could have used a space shuttle as an example, or a heart pacemaker. The point is that science gets RESULTS.

The connection is that they are using the same methods. You might as well say that the pilot who is flying the DC-9 knows what he's doing but the pilot who is flying the 727 doesn't - even though they are doing the same thing.You're seeing a distinction where there is none. And if you think there is a distinction, once again YOU are the one who needs to provide evidence.

Read what I wrote. I didn't say I knew anything. I said I know more than you.

That's where you're wrong. Geologists find oil in the real world and geologists find the true ages of rocks.

Okay, what would you like me to post? Be specific.

We get results (computers, petroleum, etc.) using the same processes that we use to learn about origins. You're saying that we can' t build a shed with the same tools that we use to build a garage.

Nonsense. They're built with the same intellectual tools.

Again... it's about the same thought PROCESS. Why would it work so well in one case (finding oil) and be such a dismal failure - according to you - in another area (finding the age of rocks)? How is it that geologists get it right when you need fuel but wrong when they disagree with you?

Why don't geologists see any evidence of a "former nature"?

Well, there's the talking animals.... Oh, wait.

"Main" reason, maybe, but not the only reason. Read through all of RAZD's many, many posts on the CORRELATIONS between MANY different methods. Get back to us when you can explain away ALL of them AND explain why they happen to give corresponding results. Why would we assume there was a "former nature" at all? Oh, make no mistake - nobody here cares what you believe. As long as we can keep your anti-science garbage out of the public schools, you can believe in whatever magic beans you like.