Did the Flood really happen?

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.

quote:

---

"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.

---

Circular gang of beliefs. None of the little gang members can stand alone.

What have you got against superior extra sensory perceptions of the past?

Why don't they see evidence of a same nature either? Strange. That brings to mind the question 'what CAN they see'?

The Oklo fable is amusing.One of it's main tenets is that magic dunk. The whole area and all the sites were, just when needed precisely, somehow dunked 'miles under' the surface. Then as needed a magic elevator ride back to the surface! We know this not because of any evidence but, you guessed it, because we need it to have been so.The whole story is belief piled on belief.

They are entirely based on beliefs and beliefs alone.

No magic or strange coincidences. Just the same processes we see today acting just as we see today.Producing a mix of isotopes that tell us it was 1.7 billion years ago.Of course your explanation for that is "magic", amirite?

They do, obviously. Everywhere they look, same same. And you can't provide a single solitary scrap of evidence that suggests that nature changed.

To begin with, there's no such thing - i.e. there is no evidence that such a thing exists.I don't remember seeing a discussion of that here. Maybe you should start one.

Obviously you haven't read any of it. Hint: It isn't about standing alone. It's about how they hold each other up.Come back when you have leared something, son.

No. They don't really look for anything else but what they believe existed. It's like spraying rocks blue and then sitting there claiming they all look blue to you.
I look at the rocks without your paint and beliefs. They should be so honest.Edited by dad, : No reason given.

You mentioned the communication that used to exist, not me. From clues in the bible we can make an educated guess that spirits communicate in ways that need not involve oral utterances.

That is the thing about gangs. They don't stand alone, they need the gang to look impressive. Sometimes if one knocks out the leader, others might run. In the case of the correlation gang here, name you best point. I can knock it out. You seek to obfuscate by piling a bunch of similar articles of faith, all based on beliefs, and focusing on the circular, internal imaginary agreement off in never never land.Who cares if misreading ratios in two separate rocks yields totally imaginary dates that could never be proven? 'Gee, the both 'dates' seem to be around a billion years old, give or take an imaginary few million years either way'!Hilarious.