Jul 1, 2012 -- 9:38PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

iama:  Did you read the articles?

None of those articles have a credible leg to stand on. You're blowing smoke Iama, pure smoke. 

Jul 1, 2012 -- 10:27PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

Jul 1, 2012 -- 10:09PM, Abner1 wrote:

iama: Did you read the articles?

Abner1: Not much point; after all, I have read literally hundreds of your articles over the years, and they have been universally worthless from a scientific perspective.  This is a scientific issue, so you need to reference scientific articles, not religious ones.  Unless and until you start referencing scientific articles, all that is really necessary is checking to see if you are still using scientifically worthless sources; when that is seen, they can be safely dismissed.

Or, to put it more bluntly, when you keep presenting nothing but garbage, after a while everyone knows from experience that all you present is garbage.

iama: Abner1, point me in the direction of a scientific article (must be available to all without purchase, etc.), dealing with the OP, which is NOT, in the end, speculation.  Being a historical event(s) which are being discussed, I challenge you to present a scientific article relative to the topic which isn't speculation, ultimately.

.

For what reason?  You feel the need to highlight some more words in red?

iam: Beyond what is available, scientifically, as with evolution-presuppositioned-scientists, based upon the scientific data which has been, historically, collected, we must identify historical science's attempts at understanding what took place at the time of The Flood as speculation.

There was no world-wide flood and certainly not since humans started farming and raising livestock.  Every single way to examine this story has shown that it isn't true, from the ordering of the fossils it supposedy deposited to the impossible mass of sedimentation that supposedly took place (different layers every 10 minutes, for example) to the numerous human histories that existed during the supposed era of the flood without ever noticing it happening --- all the objective evidence tells us that Noah's flood is simply not a historical or factual event.

So, there is need to attempt to understand what happened in the flood -- what happened is the flood didn't happen and that isn't in the least bit speculative.

More, why do you continue to link to anything from CMI?  That source has been thoroughly discredited and shown to be dishonest in the extreme; this was the site that claimed the work of Kirschner and Gerhart supported YECism when interviews from the authors showed exactly the opposite.

Aren't you opposed to dishonesty?  Isn't honesty a Christian value?  Or maybe it just isn't a YEC value.  But, since you are well aware that the CMI site seriously misrepresents scientific work and lies about a whole bunch of stuff, when you link to it, you are effectively saying that you are AOK with systematic dishonesty. 

And we are supposed to listen to anything you say?  Why?

iama

As you stated in your OP, no one knows the answer

On the contrary, scientists have a very good handle on the answer.  That's because they work from examinable evidence.

Insofar as anything you linked had anything to do with the question, no science is involved.  It's all a game of magic and excuses.  Were I not too polite to put it that way, I'd say it was bullshit of a highly concocted, dishonest and self-serving kind.  But I am too polite, so I'll simply say it's mainstream creo.