Did the Flood really happen?

Your bullet points--

quote:

---

searches for changes in the radius of Mercury, the Moon, and Mars (these would change because of changes in the strength of interactions within the materials that they are formed from)

---

What happened in the fishbowl and area is not relevant to nature in the past on earth, or to deep space and the nature of time there. If you claim that the radius of any body here shows millions of years of history, or any connection at all to the topic, then show how.

quote:

---

searches for long term ("secular") changes in the orbits of the Moon and the Earth --- measured by looking at such diverse phenomena as ancient solar eclipses and coral growth patterns;

---

How ancient? If you offer this as evidence of a same nature on earth in the far past we need to be talking of say, 5000 plus years. Show us some eclipse that helps you? Coral growth, like tree growth obviously depends on what nature exists. You cannot observe growth today in this nature and use that as the basis for all growth in the far past for no reason. Show us what change in moon orbits helps you at all??

quote:

---

data on the orbital motion of a binary pulsar PSR 1913+16;

---

All light and waves and etc are seen here in this area of earth and the solar system only. They are seen here in our time and in our space. That does not tell us about what time is like out there. How do you think some pulses arriving from deep space are in any way help your claims?

quote:

---

observations of long-lived isotopes that decay by beta decay (Re 187, K 40, Rb 87) and comparisons to isotopes that decay by different mechanisms;

---

There are isotopes in a decay chain relationship in this present nature that have very slow rates. That does not mean they used to have any decay at all. It just means in this present nature there is decay, and that we observe how it now works and how long it NOW takes.

quote:

---

the Oklo natural nuclear reactor (mentioned in another posting);

---

The Oklo story as told by science is now so full of holes, I offer it as evidence!

quote:

---

experimental searches for differences in gravitational attraction between different elements (Eotvos-type experiments);

---

Show how gravity as seen on earth is relative to what nature was like here in the past? Your points are starting to look like a word salad.

quote:

---

absorption lines of quasars (fine structure and hyperfine splittings);

---

All lines are seen here is the prism of our solar system and area, or we might call it, the fishbowl. Yes, we see hydrogen and stuff exists out there...so what?

quote:

---

laboratory searches for changes in the mass difference between the K0 meson and its antiparticle;

---

That is just observing on earth how things work now.

quote:

---

searches for geological evidence of "exotic" decays, such as double beta decay of Uranium 238 or the decay of Osmium to Rhenium by electron emission, which are impossible with the present values of basic physical constants but would become possible if these changed;

---

Just because certain weird non existent decays are not part of our present nature does not mean that this nature existed always here. No connection at all.

quote:

---

laboratory comparisons of atomic clocks that rely on different atomic processes (e.g., fine structure vs. hyperfine transitions);

---

Laboratory...anything at all is irrelevant. The lab is here in this nature.

quote:

---

analysis of the effect of varying "constants" on primordial nucleosynthesis in the very early Universe.

---

The early universe is a faith based concept snipped right out of the BB fable book. You have no been out of the earth area, and even the furthest probes are not even a single light day away yet! What you see is here.

quote:

---

a change in the strength of weak interactions (which govern beta decay) would have different effects on the binding energy, and therefore the gravitational attraction, of different elements.

---

Of course it would, but nature exists a certain way so we do not have instability such as you mention. Any changes that happened would nit be to THIS present nature of it's components. No one says this nature changed.

quote:

---

Similarly, such changes in binding energy would affect orbital motion, while (more directly) changes in interaction strengths would affect the spectra we observe in distant stars.

---

Strawman, so changes IN our nature are being discussed here. The light and spectra we see from stars is seen in our time. If time is not the same out there (?) then it would not matter how long anything we see takes. Out there, we cannot say what time is involved, we only see it HERE.

So you still have nothing to offer? Again, already done but you refuse to see. The reality has been presented to you.

There are thousands of points for you to address. Go and do that instead of boasting to me.

You have presented nothing. What you think was presented is yet to be seen.

Feel free to raise any one of them.

More rank denial. Pathetic little child.

They've been raised. You're just evading.We had a story in high school French class about a person from a certain ethnic group who was extremely lazy. The story started out with some examples of how lazy he was. Then it continued with a friend of his coming over.Friend: Did you see the big parade this afternoon?Lazy Guy: No.Friend: It went right past your house. Weren't you home?Lazy Guy: I've been home all day.Friend: Were you inside or in the back?Lazy Guy: No, I've been sitting here on the porch all day.Friend: Then how could you miss it?Lazy Guy: [shrugs] I guess I was facing the wrong way.

Not one item of evidence. Didn't you read Admin's message?

I have seen none that are more than belief based yet.

That doesn't make much sense, since people with many different belief systems draw the same conclusions from the evidence. Why would Muslims and Jews and Catholics and Buddhists and atheists all agree?

People can accept beliefs regardless of other beliefs they may also have. The issue is not whether they accept them but whether they are beliefs.

That's only an issue to you.

Example, the same nature in the past upon which science bases models of the past is a belief. It doesn't matter who believes it, it is still a belief.

No. It is a fact. One you are too ignorant to comprehend.There is no evidence that "nature" changed in the past or ever. Such is a most stupid invention with no viability and is nothing more than the ravings of a desperate religionist trying to foist an evil doctrine upon society.

Preach your religion to someone else. Statements of faith that cannot and are not supported have no place in a discussion.