Some Help from the Creationist

Umm, that's not accurate. Someone is telling the Jews how long they've been around. You have no evidence that their "record" is anything more than a complete fantasy imagined out of nothingness.If you want to discount scientific data derived from completely non-related fields (radioactive particle decay, etc) as being biased against religion, then expect all your "sources" to be likewise held in contempt.Unless you can prove that the Biblical record is absolutely infailible, you can't hold it up as any source of data.

How about, there is no God. Wouldn't that satisfy this equation completely? Wouldn't that be the most reasonable answer to this question?

Why is this funny to you? During the Ice Ages, sea levels around the world were much lower, exposing huge, largely flat areas of land along the coasts.It wouldn't take more than a couple of years before these areas were colonized by grasses. And, where the grass grows, the grazers follow. Where the grazers go, man follows.It's very likely that there were many communities built along these wide tracks.As the ice ages ended and waters rapidly returned to the sea. These areas would have been submerged in short order (one or two generations).This is the sort of event that tends to stick in the collective unconciouness

Well, there's lots of problems with this idea.First, not all rivers have been where they are currently since the beginning of time. Rivers meander.Second, some areas that now have rivers may have once been deserts / vice versa. How can you measure the amount of sediment laid if the river may not have been flowing at all for hundreds of years.Third, seasonal variations in moisture. Sure, by inch seems like a reasonable way to determine ppm coming out of a river, but think about it like this. If 1 inch of rain falls, you get X amount of silt in the water. If 99 inches of rain fall, you don;t get 99x, you get much much more. The erosion accumulates. Once enough water falls to wipe out the plants holding the dirt down, you get a massive jump in out put.Fourth, some areas used to be under water entirely, so no rivers flowing there.Fifth, does this account for time while water was locked up in glaciers?Sixth, does this account for flow once water started coming out of glaciers?Seventh, how do you determine the ppm of, say sand from sand stone if the source of that material was completely eroded away hundreds of years ago, leaving only harder (less likely to erode) materials behind?Eighth, how do you determine how much material has been depostied? For example, the Lousiana Delta (before we built a city on it) was marshland. How do we know what material under the marsh was washed down from the river, versus washed up from the shore, versus laid down by rotting plant material?Ninth, what about materials which are consumed? Soil erosion would put a lot of minerals which various life forms could absorb into the water stream but sandstone erosion would result in vast areas of unused materials filtering to the bottom.I'll stop at 9.My point is this. When we hear these kind of quotes from Creationists trying to disprove science, they smack of being blantantly false, and more importantly, completely unthought out.

So conversely, if there was no flood, then Jesus wasn't the son of God.And, since it's been pretty soundly proven that there was no flood...You might want to rethink your position on literal truth versus figurative truth.Btw, on the whole Virgin Mary thing - two questions.1) How long were Mary and Joseph married before she got knocked up? I mean, aren't they supposed to consumate?2) This ties in with translations - Aramaic -> Hebrew -> Greek -> Latin -> German -> English...My understanding is that in the old Greek, there is no seperation between "young lady" and "virgin". It's the same word. Sort of like "Maiden". That means that someone, during translation, said "Hrmm, either she was a virgin or she wasn't. I'm gonna vote for was." and wrote it that way.

There is a better solution to this. Jesus said there was a flood, because Jesus has been taught by Rabbis that there was a flood.Jesus could have believed in a Flood even if a Flood never happened, it wouldn't necessarily mean that he wasn't the son of God. Jesus can still be Jesus even if everything in the Old Testament was complete bunk. Sounds familiar to who? What are you talking about?

Think about what you are saying.If it's an extremely rare mineral, lets say Uranium, it doesn't exist uniformly over the length of the river. It would exist in pockets. If it existed uniformly it wouldn't be "extremely rare".If the river water comes into contact with a pocket and causes erosion, we'd expect to find Uranium downstream. However, we need to know how big the pocket was, how long the river was in contact with it, how many pockets there were, how much water was going by at any given time, etc. etc.They most certainly did not take those factors into account, simply because they can't know the answer to those questions.You can not look the Mississippi today and tell me if, 500 years ago, there were 2 big pockets of Uranium upstream, or 5 small pockets, or 1 huge pocket, but it was only half exposed, etc etc.This whole methodology smacks of Creationist BS. Just like the "all dinosaurs drowned, we can tell from their skeletons" crap.It's religion. No one is saying they can't play make believe in their own buildings, but when they pretend to be scientists, they run into trouble

Huh? I'm not the one playing make believe.

Are you suggesting that the iridium layer is evidence of the flood?You realize that it's an uncommon element on Earth and that it is much thicker near the Yucatan than say in Siberia. Therefore uneven distribution (more layer closer to the impact site). Is that quote true? No. Here's why.1) Fossilization doesn't require rapid burial. A creature could die in the desert and sit on the surface for fifty years prior to burial and still become a fossil. Rapid burial helps but isn't a requirement.2) "Burial is exceedingly rare today" Not true at all. I'm sure the people of Pompeii would certainly disagree. Not to mention the victims of landslides. Then there is always the dead out in the open. If animals aren't getting buried, shouldn't the ground be completely covered with dead squirrels? Go to any field or forest and start digging a trench. I guarentee you, you will come across bones during the dig.3) "fossilization is almost non-existent in modern times." Meaning what? That something that died in the 50s hasn't become a fossil? This is like saying that Hailey's comet doesn't exist because we haven't seen it in twenty plus years. Things happen on a time scale.4) "The existence of massive numbers of fossils worldwide is clear evidence of quick, deep, mass burial." This might be true IF all fossils were found at the same layer. They are not. The converse argument here is interesting to me as well, if all the animals in the world died in a great flood at the same time, why don't we find dinosaurs and rhinos and people all in the same level of sediment?5) " A global flood catastrophe would offer conditions most ideal to the location of great numbers of fossils." Again false. The biggest fossil beds (largest numbers of creatures in close prox) are as a result of natural disasters other than flood. Volcanic erruptions are hands down the best. They kill EVERYTHING and bury it all under fine silt. Fantastic conditions for fossils. Fossil beds from the sea are also pretty good. Sediment tends to build up more slowly at the bottom of the ocean compaired to the bottom of a mountain range. As a result, more dead animals per foot. But no great flood is going to cause a huge bed of underwater fossils.6) "The fossils give evidence that the animals were killed suddenly." In volcanic beds, sure. But for most fossils, cause of death is unknown. You can't look at one leg bone and two vertabrae and tell me that that dinosaur must have drowned.So, six points made, five of them very false. The last one ambiguous (isn't the moment of death always sudden? You are alive, then you are dead). I'd say over all, a very bad quote.

Not all dinosaurs were alive at the same time. In fact, there were animals prior to and after the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs that did live at the same time show up in the same layer.The Earth is shifting, but it's not "messing with the layers". If it were the layer would be destroyed, and the fossils within it would be lost. There are plenty of great pictures available of sediment layers if you google them. They are quite clear. And what if they were all sucked up into the mothership and it's hiding on the far side of the Moon?If every living thing were sucked into the ocean and buried there we'd expect to see a random assortment of fossils. We should find hippo fossils next to t-rex fossils next to giant ferns next to oak trees. We don't.To speculate that we would if we just look harder is being silly. Sometimes they can tell. For example, all the animals coming out of the ash deposits in China were killed by the volcano. Or they'll find a fossil bone with teeth marks on it, etc. But for the most part, fossils are not a great way to tell how something died.

This contradicts the "fish fossils on top of mountains" theory of the flood. Can't have it both ways.Either the flood deposited the fish fossils on top of the mountains, and in that case where's all the rest of the evidence? -or - the flood washed all the evidence away, in which case where'd those fish fossils come from?Flood theory is full of - "But what if it was different in the past?" statements. But was it different in the past? Have we found any evidence that suggests that erosion happened different? That sediment settled different? That cactus did better underwater in the past? Etc.

And no evidence has ever been found of such a layer anywhere in the world. So, Mr. Realist, what does that lead you to conclude?

That "whatever reason" is called geology. Care to give us a few examples? PLease explain to mean where in the Theory of Evolution there is a gap. Show me where the ToE contradicts the physical evidence. Or, better yet, how the Theory contradicts ALL the physical evidence.

No, I asked you to show me the gab in the theory. Show me where the logic breaks down.You're suggesting that there are gaps in the theory, I'm asking what they are

We're not talking about evidence or fossil record. We are talking about the logic of the theory. You were suggesting that there were gaps in the theory itself.For example - a few of the gaps in the theory of Intelligent DesignWho is the designer?
What mechanism is used for design?So, can you either point out the gaps in ToE or can you answer the gaps in ID? Either is fine