Comparitive delusions

You can keep saying that as much as you want, but I think it is very clear that the other posters of this thread have giving you more then convincing evidence that these scenarios have much more then simple imagination behind them.(by the way, whenever you say things like "I don't care how suggestive the evidence in the rocks is" you give scientists reasons to dismiss whatever point you are trying to make. Scientist do care about the evidence. That's how science is done)

Again, as have been pointed out to you several times before in this thread, there is much more behind theese scenarios then simple imagination. You don't seam to understand that EVERY scientific theory (no exceptions) consists of a scenario (originally imagined by a human being) supported by evidence. what makes a theory a good theory is the amount of evidence supporting it. By any standards, the amount of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, and the standard geologic interpretation of the layers of rocks on earth, is overwhelming. Indeed it's hard to find any theory better suported then the theory of evolution. In the other hand, the amount of evidence supporting the flood theory is somewhere between zip and nil. hence, anybody that believes this theory is clearly deluded (which, by the way, is the point of that thread)

Not true. the past leaves lots of clues that make their way to the present that CAN BE TESTED (By the way, all science is about the past. when you hear or see something you are merely decoding the clues left by events that have already taken place )

First you say that nothing can be stated as a fact about the past. Then you state that giants once walked the earth as a fact. You contradict yourself

As repeatedly pointed out to you by people with expertize in the fields, the ways for crosschecking do exist. But you refuse to believe them and choose to believe an old book instead.

In case you haven't noticed, this thread is not about the ancient past. it is about how deluded literalists are. And despite of what you may think, you are not the judge of which posts are pointless and which ones are not

The age of the rocks (measured by radioactive decay) is as much of a scientific fact as the hight of the mount Everest is. By your reasoning nothing at all is a fact. of course it would be right to say that nothing is proved in science. but it gets prety tedious after a while to keep saying that over and over again. So yes, scientist will state as facts things that have an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence. And there's nothing wrong with that