The Biblical Flood account is historical

Thanks Pro. As a side note, excessive quoting is generally very much discouraged and will cost you in the voting. 1R The Green river formation shows layer upon layer of sedimentation as a year by year proof – the fossil record is another point altogether, and the misdirection of my main point is noted. I’m shocked that you would use the soft tissue evidence. Creationists have been misdirecting the process of fossilization for years. Here is the stipulation: fossils become fossils by mineralization, that is, when organic material becomes non-organic. Bacteria normally strips meat from bone. This is why most fossils are inorganic. Creationists hold up the odd example and are almost smug in their case, as if they’ve finally got us beat. It’s what Creationist ‘scientists’ do best; they take a grain of truth and warp it. In some circumstances, soft tissue is also mineralized. “Soft tissue preservation” is a red herring. It’s not what some think: it is not ligaments and mummified meat. Sometimes the tissue or feathers leave an impression in the rock. Soft tissue is hardly an apt definition. Organic tissue naturally degrades to a minute molecular level. This is why they employ such careful techniques to try and save the smallest of molecular evidence. The article you listed just twists the facts. I read the paper they quote from – a publication that maintains an old earth perspective. At no point did they find what you can honestly call “original skin and connective tissue”. It actually says, the sample “contains a partial remnant of the living organism's original chemistry, in this case derived from proteinaceous skin” and to be clear they intended ‘derived’ to mean ‘came from originally’ not to mean ‘was the sample’. That is to say, that the test showed original chemistry (on a molecular level) from what was at one time skin. The Schweitzer fossils have been explained completely since 2013. Indeed, Schweitzer studied her find on 2007 and linked the proteins to the dinosaur tissue. However, in 2013, armed with a study from PRSB (who you source indirectly) she found the answer: Iron. Iron acts as a formaldehyde upon death, generating free radicals. She found that the soft-tissues she had found were indeed closely associated with iron nanoparticles. She tested this theory with ostrich blood vessels, and found that it preserved the cells, even after two years. This proof, combined with ideal fossilization conditions, is a far more reasonable explanation. As Dr. Mary Schweitzer said of Creationists, “They treat you really bad, they twist your words and they manipulate your data.” 2R There is no proof here. The width of a ring and the density of a ring does not affect how many rings will be produced. This example would only have helped you if I claimed each ring was exactly the same size. 3R “There are always scientific problems with everything when certain data is unknown”, in other words, “things we don’t know might be wrong”. I’m not sure what that means - the bible does present a great deal of data. What this big picture has to do with any of the points I brought up is just beyond me (although I do find the notes: ‘order tapes #1, 2, 3, & 4’ to be very humorous). For now, let’s examine your points. I’m trying to remain respectful in this response, but I don’t think I’m being rude when I state that what you claim is simply outrageous. If you honestly believe that a cloak of water or ice surrounded the earth, then I expect you to present extraordinary evidence to back up such an extraordinary claim. As for now, let’s apply logic and the laws of gravity. How does the firmament remain ‘stuck’ in the sky – considering that gravity exists and has always existed? How does a filter of water allow humans to live longer and run faster? These claims are just not based in reality. If you mean to say that all of life evolved out of 16,000 animals, you’ve got another batch of problems. The bible stipulates that seven of each clean kind and two of every unclean kind entered the ark (even though Moses wouldn’t make up that law until much later – contradiction). That means that of the minimal 16,000 animals, far less were actually unique kinds. Perhaps as low as 3000 unique kinds. Evolution from 3000 unique kinds is impossible. 16,000 unique kinds is impossible. There exists no genetic bottleneck in our history. How can we tell? DNA evidence – see the genome project. We have some 60,000 kinds of vertebrates. So if we started at 3000 kinds, that would mean we would have to find 20 new species of vertebrates every single year. That’s not like finding a new dog every year. That’s like finding an elephant, then an eagle, then a camel, etc. etc. every single year. Remember, apparently Noah also collected every plant seed known to mankind and apparently spent the rest of his life repopulating the world with all kinds of trees and bushes. Let’s say Noah took 10,000 kinds of plant with him, each of which requires tending. We now have close to 300,000 different kinds of plants. So that means that 30 new plant species would have to evolve every year. What about the insects? How many of those did he grab? Let’s say he grabbed 10,000 kinds of bugs, again, all requiring tending. This means that, now that we have 950,000 kinds of bugs, there would have to be 95 new species of bug every year. The fish and other water-based life probably would have died off thanks to detrimental changes in their ecology. The salinity changes would have killed the fish, not to mention the choking clouds of sediment that would have been kicked up. So can we assume that he took some fish along? Do you see what I’m getting at? Not to mention human kind, which shows no evidence of descending from eight people only a few thousand years ago – the population growth simply doesn’t allow enough time. In 2000 BCE, the population was at 27 Million. That means in 300 years the population blew up at an impossible rate – up to a 4.4% birth rate. This is just outrageous, especially considering the brutal infant mortality rate of that time. While I enjoy the explanation, “god sent” the animals, it doesn’t make much sense. Did the Kangaroos emigrate in seven days from Australia? Or is it an escape hatch – “god works miracles”. The ark waste removal system is hard to take seriously – these were mostly ignorant tribesman. Not expert shipbuilders. Am I to believe that rocking back and forth would be enough to keep the animals from asphyxiating? If you can explain how a rock like this stayed perched through the flood: Or the unrefuted points: Layers of sediment Rainfall The apparent fragility of the ark Radiometric dating CMB dating Then you might have a start in proper refutation. For now I see block quotations from fairly tinfoil-hat style publications and little in rebuttals. Sources http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org... http://www.livescience.com... http://paleo.cc... http://www.factmonster.com... http://rationalwiki.org...