Evidence for Creationism, is there any?

[FreddieFreeloader]

I found this quote in the "Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?" thread, as a response to a claim that there was no scientific backing for Creationism.

No scienticfic backing? What do you call Louis Pastuer's studys that disproved spontaneous generation? How do you explain the the fact that the earth is perfectly placed, that if it were just little bit over here or a little bit over there that we'd either burn up or freeze? Have you ever studied the complexity of the human body, of a plant or animal, or even of a microscopic cell?

As evolutionists (I'm doing the popular thing of calling evolution, abiogenesis and cosmology the same for sake of simplicity)
provide backing for their theories Creationists (specifically Young Earth Creationists) try to explain "scientifically" why that evidence doesn't hold.

I observe two things in above quote. First a misunderstanding of the implications of scientific studies (here in the case of Pasteur's experiment), but secondly, and more importantly, in the question of the burden of proof.

On to my question: Ignoring whether or not Creationists are correct in disproving the theories... Does disproving evolution, prove creationism?

I think that the answer is a loud and clear NO!

Then I ask you, what evidence do we have for Creationism?

[LillSnopp]

Answer for the original Question ( "Evidence for Creationism, is there any?"):

No, dont forget, you gotta have faith. And what would you need with faith if you had proof? Exactly.

Have a nice day.

[NGR]

Let me present another argument in support of the CM here. I believe the evidence favors the conclusion that the earth is near or at the center of the universe rather than the earth not having any special place in the universe. If the earth is at/near the center, then I can conclude that we are special and unique to the creator. So, I highly doubt that the creator would've created any other life on other planets.

I have seen writings from people who believe in their interpretation of the bible which has the Earth immobile, and go to great efforts to get scientific backing for this view, so I am interested in your position as well. Are you a full blown Geocentrist having the Earth immobile and the Universe rotating around it or are you a pseudo Geocentrist with the Earth rotating on its axis etc but the Solar system being at the centre of the Universe?

[USIncognito]

Life cannot be created out of non-life by natural processes.

Such a premise does not exist in science. As has been pointed out repeatedly in this forum, and thousands of others is that "complex" life does not come from "dead" life, (i.e. flies from raw meat, mice from grain) or that unrelated life does not spontaneously arise (i.e. Geese from Barnacles).

A corollary of this would be that life does not exist outside of the earth.

A corollary of a false premise is inherently false. I'd also add my own corollary that a falsly extrapolated premise (that even if life could not come about by "non-natural" processes on Earth) that does not mean it would, or even should be true on other planets. Taking aside the obvious panspermia, directed panspermia or abiogenesis occuring in different worlds possibilities out the the equation, there still could be other possibilities.

These predictions would be falsifiable by the SETI program detecting life elsewhere.

As I've pointed out, this is wrong. But lets address the tangent of SETI for a moment. Simply receiving a "message" from outer space does not mean we are getting a transmission from an alien civilization. Those of us who are familiar with the true meaning of "information" know that early detection of Pulsars was confused as transmissions because of the seeming regularity of the emissions.

It's precisely in things like Pulsars and crystals that the Creationist hijacking of ID (assuming all of ID isn't some Creationist rubric) that we find the failure of the "organization" means an organizer argument.

For instance, it answers all these questions in one fell swoop:

Actually each of your citations falsify the flood model. I continue to be amazed at what is cited as "evidence" 200 years after people like Sedgewick, without the benefits of two centuries of geology and paleontology continue to cite as support for their falsified theory.

- Extinction of the dinosaurs

Three problems here:
1. Biblically - God told Noah to take at least two of all species on board the Ark. Why did a species like the Platypus make it on, but a entire much larger genus didn't?
2. Logically - Extrapolating from point one, why did the Platypus or Elephant survive the post-Flood world, but not a single dinosaur didn't?
3. Paleontologically - Birds are dinosaurs, and that is evidenced by the fossil record, so I don't see how they could have been around pre-Flood.

- Why the prehistoric world had large animals/plants and now it does not

It's only in the delusions of Creationists that the modern world lacks the megafauna - and that primarily in the Cretaceous and Late-Paleolithic don't exist. Ostriches, while not as large are Moas are still huge birds. Elephants are no Indricotheres, but they're still huge. Tigers lack the giant canines of Smilodon, but they are about the same size. And whales are currently the largest beings ever on the planet.

Of course none of this explains why megafauna don't appear until the Silurian or so, disappear after the Cretaceous, or only reappear during the Pleistcene.

- The origin of the Grand Canyon and other canyons

Actually, it's just the opposite. Since the Grand Canyon is carved down to "bedrock" or Schist, which would require many years of erosion to carve them, ignoring for a moment the radical curves in the Colorado River, which cannot be explained by a flood, a year long deluge does not in any way explain the Grand Canyon.

- The existence of the mid-Oceanic ridge

Instead of hitting Creationist websites, hit the USGS.gov site and dig around for how Plate Tectonics works. Then get back to us on this one.

- The formation of the continental shelves
- The formation of ocean trenches

The Flood explains neither. The "days of Peleg" narrative are often cited by Creationist flood apologists, which would preclude continents existing before the flood so you can't have it both ways (though intellectual dishonesty is a Creationist hallmark). The later isn't explained any better through a theory positing an immutable surface or the intervention of fairies and elves. The trenches are best explained by Plate Tectonics, and nothing other than the utterly bogus "Hydroplate Theory" even attempts to do so.

- Magnetic variations on the ocean floor

Instead of just saying "no" on this one, I'm going to call you out. How exactly, with supporting scientific evidence, does the Flood theory find evidence is magnetic floor striping? Just to tell you up front... I posted a graphic from the USGS mapping the striping and anther Creationist I was debating had this succint reply - "they're lying" - since he didn't believe there was any magnetic striping.

- The formation of submarine canyons
- The formation of coal and oil

One word - Exxon. Let me know when you have "evidence" rather than claims.

- The existence of frozen mammoths

No, because 40 days of rain does not explain "frozen" mammoths. Additionally, every claim about "flash frozen" mammoths has proved to be somewhere between B.S. and an outright lie. There's no way one can claim that a Siberian mammoth fell through an ice covered pond is equivalent to a Freeze Dried hairy elephant.

- The formation of major mountain ranges

Ugh... Rockys, Appalachians, Hawiaan Islands, Tetons... Feh! How does the Flood model describe why each of them look so different despite being "formed by the Flood."

- The phenomenon of parallel rock stratas

How does the Flood model explain overshift when supposedly layers were layed down - worldwide and simultaneously - by the Flood?

- The apparent jigsaw fit of the continents

I've read Genesis a lot, and apart from the Peleg verse I mentioned above (which actually is problematic) how do you justify this claim?

[otseng]

But how could it possibly be shown that the alien life came into existence by abiogenesis, and not as the result of creation?

In all likelihod, there is no other life in this universe that was created because the earth is special.

Let's take a look at the opposite: If the earth is not at the center of the universe, would that falsify the creation model?

No. It is only one argument to support creationism. It is not a foundational premise of creationism. Actually, I do not know of many creationists who also make this claim.

Are you really serious? Or is this whole web site you run a Big Joke?

I have stated before that anyone can assert anything that they want, provided that a logical argument can be presented to back up the claim. And I believe I have done so. I will admit that proposing that the earth is at the center of the universe seems anachronistic. But, it is not logically inconsistent. Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis states: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

As to this whole website being a big joke. Far from it. There are actually very few forums that treat subjects with as much intelligence, thoroughness and civility as this site.

In most of the current models of the universe that I have seen, one could consider either ANY point or NO pont to be the 'center' of the universe.

Let's take this up in Is the universe bounded or unbounded?.

I was simply saying that if the flood did occur, it did not occur within the time frame given by the usual YEC scenario. If we are allowing OEC, then this point is irrelevant.

No, I'm not arguing for OEC, so your counter-argument is relevant. Why would it not be within the time frame given?

I was referring to the point made in the other threads. The water canopy would create too much atmospheric pressure, and a greenhouse effect which would raise temperatures beyond what life as we know it could survive.

I've never stated how much atmospheric pressure there would be, except that it probably was higher. And I never mentioned what the temperature would be, except that it was most likely higher and the temperature was more uniform across the planet.

The point has been made that the hydroplate theory with its gushing geysers of water, its rapid movement of techtonic plates, the accompanying earth quakes, etc. would produce so much turmoil that Noah and company could not have survived. I believe AIG has even noted problems with this (but right now my browser is being wierd and I can't get there). I have read passages where creationists have said that God supernaturally protected Noah from these effects. The tacit assumption is that Noah needed the protection.

I am not aware of these arguments that God had to supernaturally protect the ark.

I'm not saying life does exist elsewhere, only that if there is and its reproduction involves somewhat the same mechanisms of life here (eg. mutation, some sort of genetic coding, etc.) then natural selection other evolutionary mechanisms and principles would also apply.

I would agree that if abiogenesis is true and evolution is true, then life should exist on other planets.

No, dont forget, you gotta have faith. And what would you need with faith if you had proof? Exactly.

Of course you need to have faith. In practically everything you need to have faith. Even in science.

I have seen writings from people who believe in their interpretation of the bible which has the Earth immobile, and go to great efforts to get scientific backing for this view, so I am interested in your position as well. Are you a full blown Geocentrist having the Earth immobile and the Universe rotating around it or are you a pseudo Geocentrist with the Earth rotating on its axis etc but the Solar system being at the centre of the Universe?

Of course I believe that the earth rotates on its axis. Who do you think I am, someone from the medieval age?

Life cannot be created out of non-life by natural processes.

Such a premise does not exist in science.

I do not understand what you are talking about here. Here is a quote about Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis is, in its most general sense, the hypothetical generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to hypotheses of the origin of life from a primordial soup.

Abiogenesis is by far the most commonly accepted explanation for the origin of life among evolutionists. Creationists reject abiogenesis and state that life cannot come from prebiotic soup even in the most torrential lightning storm.

Taking aside the obvious panspermia, directed panspermia or abiogenesis occuring in different worlds possibilities out the the equation, there still could be other possibilities.

That's interesting. Please start a thread to present those alternative explanations for origin of life.

As I've pointed out, this is wrong. But lets address the tangent of SETI for a moment. Simply receiving a "message" from outer space does not mean we are getting a transmission from an alien civilization. Those of us who are familiar with the true meaning of "information" know that early detection of Pulsars was confused as transmissions because of the seeming regularity of the emissions.

Wait a minute, are you discrediting the entire SETI program?

Actually each of your citations falsify the flood model.

I do not get the impression that you have read through the [url=ttp://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=346]global flood thread[/url]. Several of the arguments that you made have been addressed in that thread.

Instead of hitting Creationist websites, hit the USGS.gov site and dig around for how Plate Tectonics works. Then get back to us on this one.

I've done even better. We have went in-depth here on analyzing plate tectonics.

I posted a graphic from the USGS mapping the striping and anther Creationist I was debating had this succint reply - "they're lying" - since he didn't believe there was any magnetic striping.

I do not deny that magnetic anomolies exist. There is evidence for them. The question is, how did it get there. My answer is that it is simply angular displacement of rocks created during the flood.

One word - Exxon. Let me know when you have "evidence" rather than claims.

Exxon, Exxon... I still don't get it.

[jwu]

But how could it possibly be shown that the alien life came into existence by abiogenesis, and not as the result of creation?

In all likelihod, there is no other life in this universe that was created because the earth is special.

Let's take a look at the opposite: If the earth is not at the center of the universe, would that falsify the creation model?

No. It is only one argument to support creationism. It is not a foundational premise of creationism. Actually, I do not know of many creationists who also make this claim.

In other words, one has to prove a negative (no life outside earth) in order to test that prediction, and if that prediction is found to be incorrect, then this is of no consequence to the creation model?

It's quite useless in order to verify if the creation model is correct or not, iisn't it?

[juliod]

I have stated before that anyone can assert anything that they want, provided that a logical argument can be presented to back up the claim.

Fine, but that's not the issue. But since these are real socio-political issues, even if you are not violating your TOS, you may very well be wasting people's time.

We, the users, do want to discuss and debate with people who hold opposing points of view. But I think most people here will be irritated, at least, to find that someone is posting fictional beliefs as an amusing rhetorical excercise.


DanZ

[Jose]

I was referring to the point made in the other threads. The water canopy would create too much atmospheric pressure, and a greenhouse effect which would raise temperatures beyond what life as we know it could survive.

I've never stated how much atmospheric pressure there would be, except that it probably was higher. And I never mentioned what the temperature would be, except that it was most likely higher and the temperature was more uniform across the planet.

The point has been made that the hydroplate theory with its gushing geysers of water, its rapid movement of techtonic plates, the accompanying earth quakes, etc. would produce so much turmoil that Noah and company could not have survived. I believe AIG has even noted problems with this (but right now my browser is being wierd and I can't get there). I have read passages where creationists have said that God supernaturally protected Noah from these effects. The tacit assumption is that Noah needed the protection.

I am not aware of these arguments that God had to supernaturally protect the ark.

I'll offer a short answer (and, I hope, resolution) for this. First, many others have done the calculations that show that to have enough water to create the supposed water canopy, greenhouse heating would be too severe for life as it is now. But, that's OK, because it was pre-Flood. Similarly, to produce the effects necessary for squirting all of that water out of the earth through the mid-ocean ridges, and shoot the continents around, etc, the calculations say that survival of life as we know it would be impossible. That's still OK, since it's during the Flood.

As near as I can tell, the CM states that "things were different" before the Flood--like people living for hundreds of years, and stuff like that. This is sufficient for us to conclude that god must have made the laws of physics, as well as biology, different than they are now. If he intervened to create life, why not let him intervene to make things the way they supposedly were?

In short, there's no real value in showing that the pre-flood world cannot have been the way the current world is, and that certain things would have been impossible. It was different then!

It is only after the Flood that the story implies that the laws of physics (etc) were established as they are now. There is no evidence that they have changed since, so we're fine with that conclusion.

Therefore, it seems to me, all of the calculations about the water canopy and the chaotic times of the erupting flood are really pretty much irrelevant. God was still tweaking things, and the rules were different. I have no problem with that. If we're considering a supernatural intervention, then we might as well let it explain everything that doesn't fit currrent reality up until the moment when the current rules were established. After that, then normal science must apply. As I understand it, this means that normal science must apply from the time that the Flood covered the earth and the plates finally stopped thrashing around.

This still leaves us with lots and lots of discrepancies. We have threads for most of them, but no consensus about the final word (which, of course, would be what I say ) The Grand Canyon, although the classic example of Flood Geology, actually contradicts it. Plates are moving, and there are good data for what's going on. There are dinosaur footprints in strata that were not exposed until after the flood had presumably killed the dinosaurs and then carved the canyons in which the footprints are found. The sorting of fossils during the flood would have to include not only vertical sorting (trilobites on the bottom, mammoths on the top), but also horizontal sorting (mosasaurs in Kansas, land-dwelling dinosaurs in Colorado). There is no mechanism to account for this, except for supernatural intervention. The settling of sediment during the flood had to be stirred "just so" to produce repeats of thousands of layers of inter-leaved limestone and shale, over and over and over, yet, with all of the stirring that enabled these repeats of identical types of sediments to form, similar-sized brachiopods, oysters, and clams were separated neatly into different layers. And, of course, there are numerous strata that are identical (except for being rock, as a consequence of their great age) to current sand dunes or volcanic ash that settled onto dry land--and these are both overlain and underlain by strata that form only in water.

I guess that the important question I would ask is this: Why is it so easy to overlook the data that simply cannot be explained by a Flood Model, unless that Model includes the Hand of God throughout the entire process, pushing and poking and aligning things "just so"? The Hand of God Flood Model is the only way to create what exists (except, of course, for the normal, scientifically accepted mechanism)--but apparently is not put forward because it is clearly a supernatural explanation, and thus not suitable for science class.

Let me phrase it differently, too: How is it possible to hold in mind the "truth" of the "data that support creation" but not be at all concerned about the additional data that rule out the creation explanation?

I have had a number of students who have written that it is winter in the US when the earth is oriented so that the US is facing away from the sun, and summer when the US is facing toward the sun. At the same time, they explain that it is daytime in the US when the earth is oriented so that the US is facing toward from the sun, and night time when the US is facing away from the sun. They cannot both be true, since they require that the earth spin on its axis at two different speeds at the same time, yet these students have been able to hold both concepts in their brains at once, without ever noticing that they are incompatible. I wonder whether it is the same kind of thing here (though much more subtle), that we compartmentalize information in our brains, and only with difficulty link information that we have stored in different places.

[micatala]

This will be my last post for a while, as I am going on vacation for two weeks. Also, I'm cranky since I lost most of a long post and am redoing it.

micatala:
I was simply saying that if the flood did occur, it did not occur within the time frame given by the usual YEC scenario. If we are allowing OEC, then this point is irrelevant.

otseng:
No, I'm not arguing for OEC, so your counter-argument is relevant. Why would it not be within the time frame given?

Here even the YEC ICR admits that living and dead bristlecone pines would indicate a flood date at least 6800 years ago. They try to get around this be invoking the ‘appearance of age’ argument or suggesting multiple rings were produced in a given year. Here is one of several sites indicating that tree ring data timelines go back at least 11,000 years. This site indicates bristlecone pines go back at least 8500 years.

There is also ice core data which is inconsistent with the flood. From Talk Origins.

“Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?
How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.”

Quote micatala:
I was referring to the point made in the other threads. The water canopy would create too much atmospheric pressure, and a greenhouse effect which would raise temperatures beyond what life as we know it could survive.

otseng:
I've never stated how much atmospheric pressure there would be, except that it probably was higher. And I never mentioned what the temperature would be, except that it was most likely higher and the temperature was more uniform across the planet.

See here for Talk Origins problems with the flood discussion. Both the vapor canopy model and the hydroplate model would produce conditions too hot for life as we know it. I would disagree with Jose that these are irrelevant, since Noah would have had to survive these conditions either before or during the flood. Baumgardner has put forward a ‘runaway subduction’ model to explain the flood. However, even he states the techtonic processes would violate existing laws governing such processes.

Quote: micatala
The point has been made that the hydroplate theory with its gushing geysers of water, its rapid movement of techtonic plates, the accompanying earth quakes, etc. would produce so much turmoil that Noah and company could not have survived. I believe AIG has even noted problems with this (but right now my browser is being wierd and I can't get there). I have read passages where creationists have said that God supernaturally protected Noah from these effects. The tacit assumption is that Noah needed the protection.

otseng:
I am not aware of these arguments that God had to supernaturally protect the ark.

In addition to the above, see Hugh Ross Reasons to Believe site for a discussion of the flood. Ross is not a friend of evolution, but makes a good case that the flood was a regional event. Ross also says that the conditions of a global flood would “render highly unlikely Noah's survival in an ark.”

There is also the problem of the distribution of fossils:

From TO:

How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:
· the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
· the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
· why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
· why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
· why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
· how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
· why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
· why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
· why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
· why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
· why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?

How much more evidence do we need before we can conclude that a global flood is not consistent with the evidence we have, especially with the contention it occurred in the last 6000 years?

[micatala]

PS the URL for Ross site is here

Previous discussion on some of this, including info from AIG stating the vapor canopy is not tenable is here

See you all in a couple weeks.

[Jose]

We kinda bogged down here, without really getting to the heart of the question. We discussed the validity of Mendel's Laws, which were pretty good for the first interpretation, but about which we know a whole lot more now. We discussed the vapor canopy, and kicked around some other ideas. But, we didn't actually present and analyze the data that support Creation!

We sneaked close to it with this, from otseng:

And I would maintain that the global flood has the greatest explanatory power as well as being the most elegant.

For instance, it answers all these questions in one fell swoop:
- Extinction of the dinosaurs
- Why the prehistoric world had large animals/plants and now it does not
- The origin of the Grand Canyon and other canyons
- The existence of the mid-Oceanic ridge
- The formation of the continental shelves
- The formation of ocean trenches
- Magnetic variations on the ocean floor
- The formation of submarine canyons
- The formation of coal and oil
- The existence of frozen mammoths
- The formation of major mountain ranges
- The phenomenon of parallel rock stratas
- The apparent jigsaw fit of the continents

These are observations that could be consistent with some versions of the Flood Model. We did not analyze each of them, and determine whether they support the Flood Model--that is, whether alternative explanations can be ruled out.

With respect to the thread topic (evidence for creation), we veered off a bit with micatala's alternate list--things that the Flood Model cannot explain without invoking lots of special cases.

How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:
· the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
· the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
· why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
· why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
· why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
· how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
· why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
· why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
· why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
· why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
· why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?

I would like to ask creationists:

1. Is otseng's list all there is in support of creation?
2. Is all of the additional supporting evidence of this same type (observations that can be considered to be consistent with the model)?
3. Is it irrelevant that there are natural explanations for the same data?
4. Do we "explain away" micatala's list as irrelevant?
5. What kind of evidence would, in your mind, actually disprove the Flood--or is that impossible because you believe it on Faith regardless of evidence?